Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on Hemel Hempstead, I apologise if my Question is a bit long—but it is too important to shorten. Is the Minister aware that over 2,000 people were evacuated and eight families are still homeless? Is he aware that many windows are still boarded up, thus making any heating inefficient, and fuel costs have rocketed phenomenally for people who are not well off? In the present cold weather, are there no funds from the Government that can help those people?

Breast Cancer

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 27 October last, in evidence to the Health Select Committee in another place, the Secretary of State said that women who had been refused Herceptin on the ground of cost should return to their doctor and ask again to be prescribed the drug.
	She told the Committee that she,
	"wanted to make sure that",
	the prescribing of Herceptin to eligible women,
	"was happening everywhere".
	Has the Minister any idea of the impact on an individual of the news that they have breast cancer? The last thing that they want to do is to go back and forth to doctors on the odd chance that they may or may not get Herceptin.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: rose to call attention to the situation in Iran; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to start a discussion among your Lordships about Iran, which I think is timely and of great importance. What happens in Iran is linked with events in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, and to some extent we cannot make sense of this situation unless we look at the whole. An observer 10 years ago, trying to look forward, might have guessed that the Palestine dispute would remain unsettled. But I do not think that even in a nightmare he or she would have supposed that Britain would have 8,000 troops deployed in southern Iraq and be sending 4,000 troops to southern Afghanistan for three years. Both are dangerous missions in disorderly places, with troops in both cases in danger, not primarily from foreign invaders but from those Afghans and Iraqis who resent our presence as a foreign occupation. Nor would the observer have guessed that while extending ourselves in those two places we would be locked in a tense argument with a powerful country lying between those two deployments, because of well-founded fears that Iran has an ambition to copy Israel and Pakistan by becoming the third nuclear military power in the region.
	My first point is this. I wish I felt confident that the planners in Whitehall, the Chiefs of Staff and, above all, the Cabinet sometimes looked at these linked issues as a whole. Of course they come from different backgrounds. We find ourselves in these situations—originally I had written "wandered into these situations"—for different reasons, but the situations are related. My worry, based on some experience, is that the more difficult the issues in each case, the more short-term will be the consideration of those issues. That is the first point on which I would like some reassurance.
	It is easy to oversimplify—we all do it all the time—by trying to fit all these situations into one category. Some talk about them as part of the war against terror, the struggle for energy, the battle against tyranny and in favour of democracy, or the clash of civilisations or religions. All of those are elements. Just as the countries and situations are geographically linked, so are the elements within them. But we can only conclude, I believe, that we find ourselves in a thoroughly dangerous situation. It is dangerous for British troops, dangerous for British interests and dangerous for the peace of the world.
	The handling of that situation, looked at as a whole for a moment, will require exceptional skill from the Government. It will involve disposing our Armed Forces, which are second to none in skill and, where necessary, cunning, and diplomatic and intelligence services, which have a high and deserved reputation. But all that depends on skilled, clear leadership from the Government. I hope that the Government and all of us will not be ashamed to learn from some mistakes of the recent past. Above all, I urge that this time, across the whole range of linked issues, we get our facts straight and put them plainly to Parliament and the public.
	I have a special reason for making that last point. It is very hard, even for those of us who try to follow these matters, to follow them successfully and to discover what is happening on the ground in any of these areas, but particularly in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. The media—this is entirely understandable and many of us have discussed it with journalists—are hugely concerned partly with the expense but overwhelmingly with the danger of sending people to cover these situations. That is particularly true in Iraq. It may well become true in Afghanistan, and there are different difficulties in Iraq.
	The result is that there is no continuous thread of reporting in our newspapers. I find that I have to read the Herald Tribune or the Wall Street Journal—American newspapers—to get anything like a continuous thread of reporting. It is as if we are passengers in a vehicle driven by Ministers, as is right, but we are to some extent blindfolded. We therefore rely, more so than in other issues, on Ministers to see clearly and to have our confidence won as passengers by what they tell us. That is a big responsibility on government and it applies in these situations even more than usual.
	On Iran, it seems to me that the Government must be right in opposing further proliferation in principle, and in this case in particular, and that they are right to distrust the assurances of a regime which is undemocratic, oppressive, unreliable and a friend to terrorism. They have also been right to build up pressure on that regime through mobilising diplomacy, and they have been right in their tactics. They have been right to join our European partners; the Foreign Secretary has been right to take the initiative with his colleagues in France and Germany; they have been right to get the approval of the European Union as a whole; and they have been right to set off down a diplomatic path. I believe that that will increasingly be the pattern for the future—for example, in our relationships with Russia.
	We have a choice as Europeans. There is no compulsion and no treaty obligation but there are shared analyses and shared interests, which I believe increasingly will lead us, as in this case, not to squabble and fly off in different directions, as we did over Iraq, but to come together and work together.
	The other big difference over the handling of Iraq is that this European effort is in partnership with the United States. European diplomacy was first accepted rather sceptically and grudgingly but then warmly welcomed by the United States, and it is now part of that country's policy. This is the United States in the second term of President Bush. The rhetoric and the speeches are broadly the same—there is a continuity—but the practice is different. I have seen it described in one newspaper today as "neo-realism", following the neo-conservatives. It is the rediscovery of diplomacy, and perhaps it is the State Department reasserting its control over foreign policy.
	The first phase of this diplomacy, based on the IAEA, ended without agreement. That is not particularly surprising because I believe that we are in for a very long haul. But the achievements have occurred through the IAEA conclusions about the concealment and non-compliance practised by Iran. Those conclusions, and the endorsement of them by a wide range of the international community and, now, the acceptance that there needs to be a transfer of the discussion to the Security Council and acceptance even by Russia and China, are important, although limited, achievements. Now there is a pause until March and then the Security Council will discuss the matter. Again, there is a big difference between what one might call Bush 1 and Bush 2. There is no longer scorn of the Security Council but a reliance on it.
	The pressures build on Iran, but I believe that they will take a long time to build effectively. Can the Minister tell us something about the status of the Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Iran in Russia? Is that acceptable to us or to the United States? What are the prospects for it, and what is Iran saying about it?
	I should mention sanctions because that issue is in the background of both this debate and the Security Council debate. I shall not press the Minister for details, but I hope that the Government will be calculating what might do some good, what might increase the pressure and what the traffic in the Security Council is likely to bear. The United States already applies extensive sanctions to Iran because of history. What would therefore be involved is the Europeans, Russia, India, China and so on joining in some of those sanctions to help build up the pressure.
	Perhaps I may say a word about the use of force. There are always bellicose journalists who urge us to bring on the bombers. But I think that everybody, including those in Washington, is fully aware of the grave risks involved. It may be tempting to speculate on a focused attack just on nuclear installations. However, we know from Iraq that there is no such thing as an attack that is so focused that no innocent people are killed. Any such attack involves killing considerable numbers of innocent people. I am not qualified to comment on the technical possibilities of a focused attack on nuclear installations, but such an attack would leave an untouched, angry and revengeful government in Tehran with probably a united people behind them. That would be true whether the United States or Israel launched the attack. An attack by Israel would be regarded—accurately, to a large extent—as a joint effort with the United States.
	I have not seen the next point made before. However, Britain would be vulnerable in the above situation. We have chosen to station our troops, in modest numbers, whether in southern Iraq or southern Afghanistan, where we are uniquely vulnerable to this kind of retaliation from nearby Iran. We cannot realistically and for ever rule out the use of force. If the regime in Iran or its successor moved from words and piled up an unmistakable danger, I do not think that we could entirely rule out the use of force. But we should not deceive ourselves that we can have some sort of strike without a war, or some sort of war that does not involve huge dangers and damage and many, many thousands of casualties, our own and Iranian.
	I should say something about democracy and the attitude and appeal of the President of the United States. In a way his appeal to the Iranian people was similar to the appeal to the Iraqi people. But there is a difference. Saddam Hussein and his family were corrupt and self-seeking and built palaces as part of the parade of power. In Iran we are dealing with puritanism as well as patriotism. President Ahmadinejad appeals to the poor, dresses simply and behaves simply. He has the same sort of appeal as Hamas on the West Bank and in Gaza and as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We should not neglect the importance of the puritan appeal in an area of the world that is marked by such glaring inequalities.
	Patriotism is also important. Iran is an ancient country with a huge history of which it is very conscious. This is more than simply a platitude for after-dinner speeches; it is a relevant political fact. We have forgotten so much of our history and, in a way, the Iranians remember too much of theirs. They remember past glory; they remember humiliation—at our hands, Russian hands and American hands; and the coup of 1953 against Mossadeq—things which we never knew or have forgotten. Out of this comes a deep reluctance to be told by other people how they should behave.
	I will not deal with the question of exiles and the rights of the PMOI because other noble Lords will make that point. They may be right in urging the deregistration of that organisation from the terror list. But I do not believe that we can say that exiles from abroad hold the keys to the future of Iran. We made that mistake in Iraq and I do not think that we should repeat it, however admirable and brave these people should be.
	We need to build up the pressures, but also to indicate the rewards. An Iran which accepted to forswear military power; recognised the need for peace with Israel, as all the Arab governments do, and had decent respect for human rights—that Iran—should have a notable part in deciding the future of the Middle East and the security of the Gulf. Arab countries are already beginning to talk about the possibility of observer status for that sort of Iran. We should say this now so that it clearly sees both the pressures building against it if its increasing isolation continues, but also the rewards available if it takes the other course. The pressures are inevitable, and we should build them up, but the rewards should be evident. That requires patience. And patience, in the rather hectic, media-driven world in which we live, is often mistaken for weakness. I am clear, however, that patient strength is the only way in which to see our way through these great dangers. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, for giving us the chance to debate Iran at a very topical and relevant time. I congratulate him on the way he has introduced the debate, and I shall be referring to many of his points as I go along. He is aware of my long-time interest in Iran, and I am only too well aware of the balanced and knowledgeable way that he dealt with Iran, often in difficult times, when he was Foreign Secretary.
	First, by way of a declaration of interest, I have never had, and do not have, any financial interests in Iran. There is a personal interest, however, in that I have been married, if not to the country, to one of its former citizens for 41 years. I am the President, and have been for some years, of the Iran Society. I was an officer, mainly chairman, of the British-Iranian All-Party Parliamentary Group in this building for 31 years; I resigned from that office, while in this House, together with a number of other offices to do with Iran—keeping the Iran Society, which is purely cultural and non-political—because of my deep reluctance to have anything officially to do, as a backbench volunteer, with the present regime in Iran.
	By way of background—the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, has touched on this—we are dealing with an old civilisation and a very fine people who have been grossly abused by various rulers and invaders. Over a couple of thousand years, they have developed a psyche of weathering the storm, and absorbing the ways of the invader. That has led, in order to survive, to their wanting to be told what to do, and even an expectation that others will do it for them. That gave us the vulnerability which led to the tragic Iranian revolution of 1979. The net result of that revolution, and the psyche of the people, was that the only two organised elements at the time took control: the mosques and the secular Left. I mention this because it is relevant to what we do in the future.
	After the revolution, there was a particularly vicious and nasty civil war between 1979 and 1983. The secular Left, in the form of an organisation that exists now—the People's Mujaheddin of Iran—lost out and eventually left the country in 1983. Before, during and after the war, it suffered persecution of monumental and extremely unpleasant proportions, which extended to its female as well to as its male members.
	The United States took the wrong approach to the present situation. It tried to isolate Iran from an early stage, which made the situation worse. It failed to support elements in Iran which could have made more of a difference then than perhaps they can now. It is a sad precedent that when a country such as America, much as we love it, is expelled from a country—for example, Cuba—it finds it difficult to forgive.
	Europe is just about as united as it can be over Iran, but we are for ever in commercial competition within Iran and we are not strong enough on our own, without the United States, to make a real difference. Russia is heavily involved commercially in Iran, particularly in its nuclear industry. It will, I think, play it both ways and end up profiting out of Iran. China, which is on the wings, has made a speciality of getting into many countries with which the West is in difficulty or is leaving. In such cases, it does not, I am afraid, care very much about the nature of the regime. Finally, let us not forget India. India has an awful lot to gain from Iran. Its outlook, subject to international public opinion, will be commercial.
	Internally, Iran is in a mess; it is in an economic and political mess. It has more than 60 million people. It cannot provide jobs for its youth. It has an Islamic government. Nobody is really in power—a different answer here, a different answer there, but with one important exception: internal security. It is completely dependent on its oil, gas and natural resources. It has a bad infrastructure. Its aeroplanes crash; its lifts do not work. I could continue in that vein. Its non-oil exports are minimal. Tragically, it has made a mess even of its caviar industry. It is dependent on the West for consumer goods. Noble Lords will perhaps have a different view, but the East will not be able to replace the West in a country which has always leant towards the West and will continue to do so. It is nonsense to think that the West needs it more than it needs us. We need its oil, but it needs the money with which we pay for it.
	Iran presents certain problems for us, the first of which is the nuclear issue. I am convinced—the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, has already mentioned it—that it is going for a nuclear bomb, and I am equally convinced that it cannot be trusted with it. This leads to the seriousness underlying this debate, as has been said.
	Terrorism has largely been limited so far to Arab-Israel, to Hezbollah and to Hamas, but some serious meddling in Iraq does not augur well for the future. British lives have been lost because of it. So it is a serious situation. If there was a military strike in whole or in part on Iran, the potential terrorism that would come out of Iran would dwarf anything that is happening in Iraq, however ghastly that might be.
	We need to strike a balance between pressure and maximum sanctions and isolation. Isolation is dangerous and unpredictable, but pressure remains relevant. People will argue for dialogue. I have spent 26 years since the Iranian revolution indulging in dialogue with Iran. I am quite convinced as a result that it will not genuinely engage and that it will play for time. I have already mentioned its vulnerabilities: the economy, infrastructure and population. We must support dissidents within and outside Iran. They expect it and they want a lead on it. Secondly, we must continually expose—and not just in a little resolution in some UN committee—its atrocious human rights violations. We must support protestors within the country all the time. A recent strike by bus drivers in Tehran and their repression was largely ignored by western media in spite of appeals—particularly to trades unions—to help. That is an example of something we should take action on.
	Finally, one thing will really hurt and will illustrate where the Government stand. I have thought a lot about it, and I have never advocated this before. I dealt earlier with the civil war in Iran after the revolution. To de-proscribe the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran—which has never been a terrorist organisation as far as this country is concerned and has a perfectly respectable political wing—as a terrorist organisation would be the biggest signal that could be sent. Dialogue is no longer a priority, action and pressure are. In bringing action and pressure, we have to encourage the Iranian people, not the administration, because, at the end of the day, only they can do it.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I shall keep that remark in mind. It pays to put our relationship with Iran in some perspective. As has been said already, the Iranians are a very proud people. Through their history, they themselves directly to the ancient Persian empire. Indeed, they tell me that the collapse of the Persian Empire, following its defeat by Alexander the Great, still grieves them to this day, some several thousand years later. So the injustices that the Iranians suffered at the hands of the United States and us over 50 years ago are as fresh and disturbing to Iranians as if they happened yesterday. Iranians remember well that in 1950s, the United Kingdom introduced a two-year embargo on Iranian oil exports as a response to Mossadeq's socialist government nationalising the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. They remember well that the United Kingdom, again in league with the United States, orchestrated the overthrow of their Prime Minister and the reinstallation of the Shah to counter the threat of Iranian oil and gas fields falling under influence of Russia.
	When I visited Iran, I was amazed to find that it is one of the few countries in the world where the BBC is intensely distrusted. Iranians believe that BBC World Service announcements to Iran facilitated the regime change of Mossadeq. Again, they believe that the 20 million demonstrators who took to the streets against the Shah, which led to his fall, were mobilised through the BBC. That is what Iranians believe, and today they are still deeply suspicious of the United Kingdom instigating regime change from outside.
	Iranians look around and see the US and UK military presence in Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and the Gulf states. They are more or less surrounded. It is hardly surprising if Iranians consider that the pursuit of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attack is the logical course. So how should we react? Clearly, threats of military reprisal could well be counter-productive. They could reinforce the inherent distrust and the hold that the regime has on the Iranian people through fear. They could encourage conservatives in the Iranian regime to pursue nuclear weapons development with all possible haste.
	Our intelligence and other intelligence sources conclude that Iran is pursuing a twin-track programme: the legal development of nuclear-fuelled power generation, as a substitute for gas and oil and the illegal development of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons—illegal because Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Intelligence sources have concluded that Iran is aiming to reach a stage when it can switch from civil nuclear power to include nuclear weaponry development in the shortest time possible. Iran's scientists and engineers are thought to be about five years away from producing Iran's first thermonuclear weapon.
	Clearly the West has to react, but surely not by attempting to repeat the type of regime change carried out in Iraq. Intervention must be under the aegis and through the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations. Any other route would surely lead to ever greater and possibly catastrophic instability throughout the region.
	As a first step, the UN Security Council could condemn Iranian failure to comply with the undertakings that were given to the IAEA, and demand compliance. The United Nations could follow up by authorising a number of actions to reinforce that compliance. It could, for example, seek UN oil sanctions. As has been mentioned, oil comprises 80 per cent of Iranian exports. It is unlikely to be easy to achieve this. China, for example, takes about a quarter of Iran's oil exports, and her burgeoning economy has a huge appetite for oil. Russia, too, is likely to object, and India, as has been mentioned, as well as Japan, South Korea, France and Italy are all major customers for Iranian oil.
	We could seek energy equipment sanctions through a United Nations Security Council prohibition of the transfer or sale of oil and gas technology to Iran. That is a smart sanction, and could be a significant move that affected the regime more than the Iranian people. Again, however, it could be difficult to get agreement, given Russia's energy interests. Are military strikes a contender? Under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, the UNSC could authorise a strike against military targets, but that is extremely unlikely. Military strikes by the United States, possibly backed by Israel, are perhaps more likely, but given the extent of the scale of the nuclear development facilities at Esfahan, it would need to go far beyond the concept of mere surgical or pinpoint strikes to be effective.
	The inevitable outcomes of that would surely be a large number of civilian deaths, and the Iranian military conventional retaliation against Israel and US and United Kingdom assets in the region. Are we ready for that? It could also mean the destruction of the ancient capital of Esfahan, founded by Shah Abbas the Great in the 16th century. A world heritage site sits on the crossroads of the ancient silk caravan routes. Are we prepared to commit that destruction?
	There needs to be a change in the political climate in Iran to encourage policies and initiatives that are not based on the presumptions of external threats and duplicity. In that context, the use of external agents to instigate internal regime change is clearly a non-starter. The Iranian regime is under internal pressure to change. The population has more than doubled since the revolution. The young people are vastly in the majority, and they are pressing for greater social freedom and economic opportunity, but external threats, implied or direct, allow the Iranian Government to suppress the call for change by prioritising the need to defend Iran from external attack. While the Iranian regime can mobilise public support in defence against threats from the West and thus justify harsh restrictions on civil liberties, reform will be slow.
	Finally, there needs to be a clear demonstration from the United States and us that, through compliance with the IAEA, Iran need not be under military threat. We could start with a security guarantee to Iran from the United States, and continue with a commitment in the longer term to the creation of a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East as an extension to a successful peace process in which Iran could play a prominent role. I fear, however, that that is a long haul indeed.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, in the debate today, many will rightly focus on the political situation in Iran—some have done so already—and on its implications for the region and for the world. Iran's relations with her neighbours, the confrontational situation with Israel and international unease about Iran's nuclear ambitions are all causes of significant concern.
	A number of people in this Chamber can address these concerns better than I can. I am sure that they will do so. Indeed, they have done so. I wish, however, to draw your Lordships' attention to some features of the situation which should not be forgotten. The first is that Iran is not only a revolutionary Islamic republic. As has been said, it is the bearer of an ancient and dynamic civilisation which predates the coming not only of Islam but of Christianity. It has also had a hugely creative relationship with Judaism. The remaining Jews in Iran are a legacy from the time of Queen Esther.
	This civilisation has its own sense of history, its own literature—historical, poetical, scientific and theological—and its own culture. Nor have the people of Iran always been victims of invaders. They have sometimes been conquerors of other parts of the world themselves. The relationship of that complex heritage to Shi'a Islam is not always straightforward. It is largely awareness of that civilisation that distinguishes Iran from its Arab neighbours. As a factor in the national consciousness, it should never be underestimated. It would certainly play an important role in the cultural and spiritual renewal of the Irani people.
	Secondly, there is a great deal of ferment in Iran; that has been hinted at already. There is a spiritual hunger and thirst that is not being quenched and that continues to seek freedom for the spiritual quest. Young people, who are by far the majority, are dissatisfied with the artificial constraints imposed on their access to knowledge, entertainment and current affairs. They wish to be treated as adults in terms of their relationships, and are looking for trust not for repression. It is difficult to see how any regime can indefinitely hold back the tide for change.
	Thirdly, the ulema or the fuquha, the religious scholars themselves, or at least some of them, are opening up to the outside world. In Tehran, Qorn and Meshed, they are studying, translating and commenting on contemporary philosophical, literary and theological movements and works. There are projects for translating the works of western theologians, for instance—people of other faiths—and there are regular programmes for inter-faith dialogue. In the past week we have seen the dangers of caricature all too clearly. We must not succumb to that tendency but evaluate carefully where such intellectual activity is leading and what impact it will have in the long run on that nation's life.
	Music, poetry and film continue to flourish even in post-revolutionary Iran and are often the vehicles for social comment and political criticism. Any policy of exchange will need to support the recovery of Iran's ancient heritage. The work of the British Institute of Persian Studies has been second to none in that respect and I hope it can continue. The young need to be encouraged and the religious scholars supported in their wish to widen their horizons. Whatever happens politically, we must make every effort to continue and increase academic, cultural and religious contacts.
	I make a final observation: the United Nations and other monitoring agencies have consistently singled out the parlous state of Iran's religious and ethnic minorities. Their freedom is in many cases significantly restricted. Their properties have been confiscated and they live in constant fear of being reported to the Basiji, or revolutionary guard. Their survival and welfare should be in our minds when we consider the political options.
	We pray that Iran will, once again, attain greatness not on the basis of its military power but because of the sensitivity of its people, the scope of its art and literature and the sweetness of its language. We pray that it will be once more a respected member of the international community and that it will make its own special contribution. As an Iranian poet has said,
	"Iran Khudaya bar zamin, dar har Zaman azad bad
	Kuh o dar o dastish hami, az rachmata abad bad".
	He says,
	"Oh God may Iran be free in every age, its hills plains and forests flourish by your grace".
	I am sure we can all say "Amen" to that.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for initiating the debate and for providing the opportunity to consider the position of human rights in Iran and the inclusion of the PMOI on the terrorist list.
	It is just about a year ago since I spoke at a symposium of parliamentarians and jurists calling for the removal of the PMOI from the terrorist list. I said then that I hoped that the following year would be the year in which a dark and brutal chapter in Iran's proud history would close and a new dawn would begin. But what is the reality? What has happened since? As we speak, Nazanin, an 18 year-old Iranian girl, languishes in solitary confinement in a Tehran gaol, counting down the last days of her short life. Nazanin has been sentenced to death by one of Iran's Islamic courts. She was accused of killing the man trying to rape her in a park in Tehran when she was just 17 years-old. A weeping Nazanin told the religious judge that she and her 16 year-old niece were attacked by three men who wanted to rape them. The judge accepted her account but nevertheless condemned her to death. This is the regime we are talking about.
	Nazanin's story is not an isolated one. Earlier this month, another girl, Delara Darabi, was sentenced to death for a crime she allegedly committed as a minor—a crime she absolutely denies. A particularly repugnant case is that of 16 year-old Atefeh Rajabi who, in August 2004, was hanged in public for what the religious judge described as "acts incompatible with chastity". He then personally put the rope around her neck.
	Since the new president assumed office—undemocratically elected by only 10 per cent of the population—150 men and women have been hanged in public in Iran. The total number of political executions in the past 26 years is believed to exceed 120,000, many of whom have been minors. Iran has one of the most deplorable records of human rights violations in the world. There have been no fewer than 54 UN resolutions condemning the ruling mullahs for their continuing grave violations of human rights. As has been widely reported by international human rights organisations, the government of the radical Islamic president has been stepping up international repression. Executions, arbitrary arrests and violent suppression of anti-government protests and strikes are on the rise.
	The nuclear danger can never be underestimated; it has to be one of our major concerns. But that does not mean that we should lose sight of the fact that millions of Iranians are living under this repressive and theocratic regime. From the onset, the president's policies have exhibited a volatile mixture of nationalism and radical Islamic social engineering. His language has been one of contempt for the international community and for religious and ethnic minorities; there has been xenophobia, anti-Semitism and an absolute rejection of compromise, so clearly illustrated by his vow to defy referral to the Security Council of his suspected nuclear ambitions.
	As is so often the case, women are the first victims of the renewed crackdown by the ultra-Islamic radicals. Earlier this month, the president's adviser said that plans to enforce gender segregation on Iran's pedestrian walkways were well underway. The official said that this was part of a government plan called "Enhancing the hijab"—that is the veil—"culture and female chastity". When the president was the mayor of Tehran, he ordered all buildings belonging to the municipality to have separate lifts for men and women. I assume those lifts were actually working.
	In Iran, violence against women has been legalised and institutionalised by the state. A recent study conducted by the National Welfare Organisation found that two-thirds of Iranian women are victims of domestic violence. Iran remains one of the only countries in the world where women are stoned to death. Last year, the UN Special Rapporteur for Violence Against Women, Professor Ertürk, chastised Iran over what she said were abuses and discrimination built into the Islamic republic's laws. She wrote in her report:
	"Iran's laws do not provide protection for victims of domestic violence and make it difficult to escape violence through divorce".
	She also said that suffering wives face time-consuming judicial procedures and stigmatisation.
	At the same time as condemning the Iranian regime, we should be offering our support to Mrs Maryam Rajavi, as did my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris, and the Iranian resistance for staying true to their goal of standing up for the basic rights of the Iranian people. As well as revealing to the world the mullahs' nuclear weapons programme, their terrorist atrocities carried out in various parts of the world and their interference in Iraq, the PMOI and the NCRI have been fundamentally the primary source of information concerning the Iranian regime. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said, getting information is difficult.
	It is therefore a grave injustice that the PMOI should find itself proscribed and have restrictions placed on its activities. The placing of the illegitimate terror tag on the PMOI was an undeserved gift to the mullahs, as has been the policy of appeasement which only strengthens the mullahs in their abuse of human rights. It is about time that we stopped appeasing the mullahs. It is about time that we de-proscribed the PMOI. The proscription of the PMOI does not have the support of many hundreds of parliamentarians, British jurists or the British public. I believe that Britain is in a unique position to take the lead in launching a new policy initiative on Iran and forging a transatlantic consensus that will through a robust, creative and firm diplomacy prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government are prepared to take up that challenge.
	I end by doing something I never believed I would ever do—quote from an editorial in the Sun. It says:
	"Meanwhile, the EU has stupidly labelled the only effective internal opposition, the PMOI, as terrorists.
	The PMOI has never targeted the West. It publicly ceased attacks on the Iranian military in 2001.
	Foreign Secretary Jack Straw must today demand EU action to lift this crazy ban.
	And stop appeasing a regime that aims to hold the Arab and Western world at nuclear gunpoint".

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I, too, agree with the Sun on this occasion. I thank my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell for having initiated this debate. I am well aware, when listening to someone with his experience, how much I have to learn.
	I start with some facts known to us all. Few doubt that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, retaining close links with the most notorious terrorist groups in the Middle East. Few doubt that it has been making trouble in Iraq. Few question that with the intensification of its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, it is a threat to world peace. Few doubt that the regime is an evil dictatorship with a complete contempt for human rights. But after the experience of Iraq, I doubt whether anyone yearns for a war launched by the US, Britain or anyone else to topple the regime. Most people want to see change—peaceful change, if possible—brought about by the people of Iran themselves. One would like to see the West pursuing policies which make such change more rather than less possible.
	I frankly admit that it is only comparatively recently that I have come to study these matters, and I repeat that I am no expert. Noble Lords will also appreciate that I am not automatically attracted to organisations with marxist leanings. But I have come to the same conclusion as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and many others on all sides of the House. It is clear that the PMOI is a member party of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is an alliance of a number of parties, individuals and groups, acting as a Parliament in exile, calling for an end to the present regime, calling for free elections and a democratic state. As for the PMOI itself, it appears to be by far the largest and most active opposition movement in Iran, and before being banned by the regime in 1981, had half a million members.
	The US Congressional Research Service describes the organisation as,
	"a major opponent of the regime in Tehran, advocating democracy, human rights protection and free-market economics for Iran".
	Right now, the PMOI is active within Iran carrying out propaganda and political campaigns and it has proved itself the best source of intelligence about what is going on there. In 2002, it was the first to reveal Iran's secret nuclear sites.
	I pay close attention to the words of my noble friend Lord Hurd who doubts whether the exiles have the capacity to bring about change, but nobody has told me of any organisation other than the PMOI which offers any hope of bringing democracy to Iran. Nobody has told me of another organisation which also has broad support and which is also in a position to tap the huge discontent and yearning for change in Iranian society evidenced by the boycotting of the last presidential election.
	Back in 1997, America put the PMOI on its list of terrorist organisations. There is reason to think that that was not so much out of concern for the organisation's activities as to further a policy of rapprochement with the regime. The Clinton administration made what a senior US official described as,
	"a goodwill gesture to the new Iranian President Muhammad Khatami",
	and in March 2001, Britain followed suit, including the PMOI in a list of 21 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. I can well understand why that happened at that time, but the trouble is that by our actions against an organisation which has certainly never attacked western or British interests, we have been helping no one but the mullahs. By attaching the terrorist tag to the only organisation capable of opposing them, we have been legitimising their rule. We have enabled them to argue that, faced with what the West apparently recognises is a terrorist threat, they have been entitled within Iran to take stern, even brutal measures. And of course, proscription has certainly weakened gravely the ability of the PMOI to present its case in America and Europe. It has stopped it engaging in political activity to gather support and build up opposition to the regime.
	In those circumstances, I ask the Government to consider whether the time has come to take the lead in de-proscribing the PMOI. I do not accept that the PMOI was a terrorist organisation within the meaning of the 2001 Act. Its operations were carried out against the military targets of a tyrannical regime. In a sense, all that is beside the point, as one can see from reading the debate in 2001. On that occasion, the Home Secretary was at pains to point out that, even after having come to the conclusion that a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act, he had a discretion whether to list it or not. One can see why. If the powers in the Act had existed in 1938 and the British government of that day had sought to use them to proscribe an organisation bent on using violent means to rid Germany of the Nazis, I like to think that the government would have been condemned by every decent citizen.
	The parallel is obvious. So long as we continue to proscribe the PMOI, we undermine and weaken the principal opposition to a regime whose continued existence is certainly not in our interests. We make it easy for the regime to brush aside the so-called reformers in its own ranks and enable them to give the impression to their own people that the West, if not on the side of the regime, is against those who oppose it. We are helping to prop up a tyrannical regime with a complete contempt for human rights. If on the other hand we de-proscribe the PMOI, we will be signalling support for the democratic change in Iran which we surely all desire.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, by talking a great deal about the PMOI, partly because I think it is a difficult problem. I issue one note of warning: after our experience in Iraq with Mr Chalabi and his associates, one should be careful about treating the evidence of exiles as full proof of the position that they hold. There are often people with strong interests, not least in Iran, in retaining what was, in the past under the Shah, a pretty feudal regime. One has to bear that in mind in deciding whether to support a particular group of people who are essentially associated with the families that for so long ran Iran.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was wise to say that there is a certain appeal, not least in the Middle East, to people who exercise a puritanical attitude towards their own enrichment. In a world where corruption is profoundly known, it is important to notice that somebody will attract support simply because they live in an austere way and appear to be still a man of the people. While I in no way condone the terrible human rights abuses that have occurred in Iran—the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, was absolutely right in what she said, not least about the dreadful position of women in the country—we have to be careful in simply dismissing the appeal that the president and those around him may have at the present time to many Iranians who over the years have felt profoundly exploited and maltreated by the West.
	In that context, I add one thing to what the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, because it is often easy for us to forget these things. There was Mossadeq, there was the Shah himself who to a great extent was imposed upon the country, but we should not forget that the most dreadful war of recent times in terms of the loss of young men was the Iran-Iraq war. The level of casualties in that war was equivalent to the First World War in Britain or France; it was the sacrifice of a generation. That generation was mostly sacrificed to arms and weapons provided to Iraq by the West, particularly by the United States, in order to defeat and weaken Iran. That is not long ago, it is a recent memory and feeds deeply into Iranian paranoia about the West—a paranoia which is not, alas, entirely a fantasy.
	There are a couple of things about the approach that we might now take, by way of one other observation. The West has supported the whole architecture of nuclear non-proliferation with its words, but not, alas, with its deeds. As recently as last spring, there was an attempt to reject the comprehensive test ban treaty, specifically because there was an attempt by the first Bush administration—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, that the second administration has learnt both patience and wisdom—to escape from the treaty, to talk about bunker busters and a new generation of nuclear weapons, and to flatly refuse to carry out the responsibilities of the nuclear powers towards sustaining the non-proliferation treaty. We ourselves have gone a long way to undermine the strength of that architecture. We have to answer in part to ourselves for the way we in which we weakened the non-proliferation treaties.
	Colleagues in this House may recall that as recently as 19 January of this year, President Chirac has this to say at the appropriately named Finistère base of the French armed forces:
	"in the face of the concerns of the present and the uncertainties of the future, nuclear deterrence remains the fundamental guarantee of our security".
	It is phrases and thoughts like that that clearly feed the Iranian belief that they too should protect their security, surrounded as they are by many hostile states. It is worth adding that they have noticed that both India and Pakistan, after a great deal of world furore as they reached the point of becoming nuclear powers, became quite acceptable to the international community having become nuclear powers—in the teeth of the IAEA and of the UN regimes to prevent proliferation.
	What might be done about all this? I echo the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, in asking about the Russian proposal to deal with the enriching of uranium and to then supply Iran. I understand that the first reaction to that was one of rejection by the government of Iran, but it is the one show in town that may have some life in it. The fact that Russia has a $1 billion development contract with Iran to develop the Shahab nuclear missiles—the missiles are not currently nuclear but could become so—is serious, but it gives Russia a disproportionate amount of influence. India also has great influence, and has so far not been brought into the discussion about Iran's position.
	Lastly, what early hints were there in the beginning of the diplomatic minuet with Iran that there might be some possibility of discussing a non-aggression pact in the Middle East? There is a problem; Israel is a nuclear power at the present time. In looking more widely at the position of the region, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, in introducing this fascinating debate, there is a real possibility that a non-aggression pact linked to a slow down and, eventually, to a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East might get us somewhere. Iran has to be persuaded that she is not going to be attacked out of the blue in the way that Iraq was, and she has to be persuaded that a response to that by either sanctions or, worse, the loosing of terrorist forces over the whole of the region would present the whole world with a catastrophe, and one that would exact a colossal price from us all.
	To conclude, one line that we might pursue was eloquently and beautifully expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. We should stop to think for a moment whether Iran might be at least as well approached by an attempt to build up an inter-faith dialogue, given that its council of guardians are the people who actually run the place, than by the conventional methods of politics. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate hinted at: that through theology and culture we may begin to establish the kind of links with Iran that one day may bring about the change that all of us want to see—the enlightenment in that remarkable civilisation.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is well over two years since this House debated, through an Unstarred Question that I put on the Order Paper, the question of Iran's relationship with the international community. It is thus timely that, on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, we should return to the subject now—all the more so because the relationship has not evolved positively, as was then hoped; quite the contrary.
	The EU3's efforts to agree with Iran the objective criteria necessary to alleviate legitimate concerns about that country's nuclear programme have met with a frustrating combination of prevarication, evasion and the reversal of commitments to suspend all work on uranium enrichment. At the same time, the new president of Iran has fuelled international concern with a series of bellicose statements, in particular about the state of Israel, which would be unacceptable in the mouth of any head of government but which are all the more alarming coming from one whose country's nuclear programme cannot yet be demonstrated by the IAEA to be exclusively peaceful in nature, and which possesses a sophisticated missile capability. It seems entirely appropriate that this matter should now be reported to the UN Security Council, and quite unreasonable that Iran should consider such a report as being in some way a hostile act for which it is not wholly responsible.
	What is the course of action in the Security Council most likely to secure the objective we all share—including, purportedly, the government of Iran—of certainty that Iran's nuclear programme is and will remain exclusively civilian? As a first step, I suggest that the Security Council should clearly set out what is required of Iran to achieve that objective and what is needed to avoid a situation in which the further pursuit of Iran's nuclear programme might be considered a threat to international peace and security.
	A complete cessation of all enrichment activities, whether research or production, is surely an essential part of this, not because it is a legal requirement under the non-proliferation treaty—it is not—but because Iran's longstanding clandestine activities in this field, including the purchase of technology from Pakistan, taken together with the better understanding that we have now of the scope that uranium enrichment production capacity provides for a country to switch to a military programme, makes it essential. Similarly, Iran's continued acceptance of the inspection regime provided for in the Additional Protocol will be essential. In return, Iran has the right to get absolute guarantees, but no obstacles will be put in the way of the development of a bona fide civil nuclear programme. In the short term that may best be achieved by the Russian offer of enrichment services; in the medium and longer term, and to counter Iran's claims that it is being treated discriminatorily, I would believe that we need a general system of international guarantees of enrichment services operating through the IAEA. This proposal was put forward by the UN Secretary-General last year on the recommendation of the high-level panel, and it seems to be gaining a wider degree of international support. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the Government are yet ready publicly to throw their weight behind it—and, if not, why not.
	There is much talk of sanctions against Iran, and it may come to that; but it should surely do so only if Iran refuses to co-operate or endlessly prevaricates over fulfilling what the Security Council states is essential, or if it continues to reverse its policy of full co-operation with the IAEA. The most effective sanction is the unity of the international community. The Government have done well to secure the agreement of the five permanent members of the Security Council on the need for the IAEA to report on this matter to the Security Council. It will be of the greatest importance to maintain that unity. Of course, if the price of unity is inaction in the face of Iranian refusal to co-operate, that would be too high a price to pay. But patience and perseverance are more likely to produce results than pressure for immediate action on sanctions.
	I also believe that we have to look wider than the nuclear issue in isolation, if the drift away from diplomacy and towards coercion is to be halted. Iran does have legitimate security concerns and, while it is not legitimate for it to develop nuclear weapons in response, it has a right to expect those concerns to be taken seriously. It is surely high time to begin exploring more actively whether the establishment of some regional security institutions, based on co-operation between the three main powers in the Gulf sub-region—Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia—could provide part of the response to those concerns.
	It is also an inescapable fact that Iran has security concerns about the intentions of the United States. While I welcome the much strengthened US support for the efforts of the EU3, I cannot see how those concerns can be addressed or dissipated without some direct contact between Iran and the United States. If the US can talk to the North Koreans and discuss its security concerns, why is it so inconceivable that it should do so to the Iranians? If bilateral contact is unacceptable, perhaps a group of which the United States could be a member could take up a dialogue.
	It is clear that we are going to have to live through a considerable period of heightened tension between Iran and the international community. It is important that the EU3 continues to pursue a coherent and flexible strategy—one that combines firmness over the nuclear issue with a willingness to look beyond that to a prospect of enhanced co-operation. So far as Iran's internal politics are concerned, recent developments cannot but be a serious discouragement to all who want to see a fully democratic Iran, in which sectarian and ultra-nationalist views no longer determine Iranian foreign policy. But it is for Iranians themselves, and not for us, to seek to bring that about. Loose talk about regime change is liable to be counter-productive, merely strengthening the hand of those in power and encouraging the very policy options that we are seeking to avoid—just as bad as public discussions of military options. Of course these do exist; it would be na-ve in the extreme to suppose otherwise. But it is surely right to make it clear at every stage and to every interlocutor that the policies that we are pursuing are to be achieved by diplomacy and peaceful means and not by the threats of force.
	Finally, I make a plea from someone who began his diplomatic career 45 years ago in Tehran. We must really try to put ourselves in the shoes of the Iranians and to understand their thinking. It would be quite wrong to suppose that this is exclusively conditioned by religious extremism. Some of the things that President Ahmadinejad says could just as well have been said—indeed, they were said—by Prime Minister Mossadeq in the 1950s. Iran's experience of being pushed around and manipulated by the great powers is a long and bitter one. We need to appeal to the pragmatic instincts, which exist in every Iranian whom I have ever known—and also to avoid playing to those memories of earlier defeats and humiliations. To coin a phrase, we need to show them respect, even when we disagree with them.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I follow and adopt the wise and measured words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and particularly the appeal to see ourselves as the Iranians see us. I also congratulate, as have other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on his initiation of this debate and on drawing attention to the grave and in some ways urgent nature of the Question. It is a test for us all of the limits of the limits of soft power and hard power.
	When the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place published its report on Iran in March 2004, we began by stressing the geo-strategic significance of the country, surrounded by volatile neighbours, and with substantial oil and gas reserves and a large population, as well as the positive contribution Iran could make to vital UK interests—the Middle East peace process, the war on terror, Iraq, and the drug supply, on which we have co-operated very closely with Iran. Our conclusions appear today somewhat optimistic in the light of wild rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad and Iran's conduct on the nuclear issue. But our broad conclusions remain valid. Iran is a powerful country. The balance of regional power, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, has swung decisively in its favour. It makes sense to co-operate in areas of mutual interest such as drug control. Now, however, the nuclear problem puts all others in the shade.
	Dealing with that issue requires an understanding of the history of Iran, the motivation of its leaders and the complex dynamics of the parallel power structures. In particular, we should ponder where each step that we take along the road may lead, what is our end game and the attendant dangers to regional and indeed world peace. The deal brokered by the EU3 in autumn 2003 was hailed at the time as a triumph of EU diplomacy. Indeed, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were there at the time of the deal. It certainly bought time in which other key countries, such as Russia and China, came to recognise the dangers. The question remains whether it has been wholly played out or whether parts, such as security guarantees—the attempt to address the real security concerns of an encircled Iran—can profitably be revived.
	The US for historical reasons has been more sceptical, and its rhetoric, such as "axis of evil", and even the later State of the Union message on encouraging internal opposition, has been shrill and counter productive. Ultimately, however, historians may conclude that the West was indeed deluded and that Iran's aim has been consistent—the development of military nuclear capability. This aim has been fuelled in part by recognition that if Iraq had nuclear weapons the coalition would not have invaded it, and by perceived double standards in the West. Now Iran is emboldened, made more confident by the problems of the coalition in Iraq, by the rise in oil prices which has bought new dependencies from other major countries—new friends in India, China and Russia—and by technical help from Venezuela and missiles from North Korea.
	What is the evidence of its intention of developing a military nuclear capability? There is the 18 years' history of Iran's duplicity; the fact that oil and gas-rich Iran does not need civil nuclear power and the discovery of weapons-grade uranium traces at Natanz with implausible explanations on the Iranians' part. There is the hampering of IAEA investigations and the rejection, so far, of the Russian offer to enrich uranium in Russia, under Russian supervision. What is the current status of the IAEA initiative for an international fuel bank, under its management, to guarantee supply to countries like Iran? What is the Government's best estimate of when Iran is likely to have enough material to make a nuclear bomb, and how dangerous would it be if Iran obtained nuclear capability?
	The rhetoric of their president is alarming, with the intent—and, potentially, the capability—to destroy Israel, together with links with terrorists groups that could lead to those groups obtaining dirty bombs. That would destabilise the wider region, including Saudi Arabia, and undermine the non-proliferation treaty with no consensus for replacement. The key questions are: what is to be done next, and where would different responses lead? The military option—that is, selective strikes on nuclear sites—has been raised. Potentially, that could be technically feasible in the short term. Yet the recipes and research scientists are there, and it would be realised at considerable political cost.
	Is there any life left in the diplomatic track? It is certainly vital to follow solely the UN route and to keep Russia and China on board. It has been a miracle of diplomacy that they have indeed joined the international consensus. Are there incentives such as security guarantees which could even now divert Iran, which sees itself as surrounded by US forces?
	Clearly, and to conclude, we need a twin track. We should continue to explore whether there is any realistic prospect of a deal including security guarantees and with enhanced technical and commercial co-operation as rewards. As other noble Lords have said, Russia is the best hope of providing a deus ex machina, the way out of such problems in classical tragedy. At the same time, while recognising the difficulties of reaching a consensus on sanctions—those that we mentioned as being mostly relatively ineffective, such as football sanctions—we should make clear to Iran that there is indeed a price to pay if it fails to respond and that penalties would increase incrementally to international isolation.
	I conclude that the task is formidably difficult and that we may fail, with frightening consequences for regional and world security.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I too want to thank my noble friend Lord Hurd for initiating this debate and for laying a basis for excellent debate with his excellent speech. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, but I am sure all noble Lords will agree with that.
	The Iran crisis is more serious than the Iraq crisis, for three reasons. There is a greater and real danger of nuclear proliferation; there is, I believe, an increased hostility among middle eastern countries toward western countries, generated by the Iraq war; and, if the Iran crisis ever led to military action—which I hope it will not, yet we cannot rule that out—it is difficult to see where the necessary troops could be found among the coalition countries. However, the situation is in one way better than the Iraq crisis was, in that the European Union countries are now working together. They are now also working with the United States.
	I want to refer to one lesson from the Iraq story that is relevant in this situation and in other international problems which may face us, which is that we should be ready to put our views strongly to the United States. I am a great supporter of the American alliance, and have been all my life. However, one serious aspect of the Iraq crisis was that the Prime Minister clearly failed to put our views and interests strongly enough to the Government of President Bush. Indeed, we know that he and President Bush made an agreement 11 months before the war began, supporting the idea of war in principle. I have no idea what persuaded him to do that—his wish to be popular, I suspect—but that was a great pity. We have greater experience of the Middle East than the Americans, who should have paid greater attention to our views.
	I believe that the United States expected to be welcomed in Iraq and that their troops, when they got there, would have received the sort of reception they had in France in 1944, with flowers and joy. They expected the situation in Iraq to be peaceful, which it turned out not to be. I remember hearing a powerful speech just before the beginning of the Iraq war from my noble friend Lord Jopling, who is not here today. He had been in Washington the week before and had had several talks with politicians and military people, and he made the point that there appeared to be virtually no preparation being given to what would happen after the Iraq war. That is what led to many of the disasters which have followed ever since. Have the allies worked out a strategy for the possibility that, for example, the Russian offer of enriching uranium may fail? What other strategy should then be adopted? I seek some reassurance on that, although I do not suggest that it is the only problem to be faced. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, that we are in for a long haul.
	I turn now to Israel, which is very relevant to this situation. Israel is an important factor in the whole of the Middle East, and a matter of concern to almost every middle eastern country. We know that the new president of Iran made that extraordinary statement about wiping Israel off the face of the map. That hostility to Israel clouds and hampers all western efforts to encourage stability in the Middle East. What is required is for the United States, which alone can do this, to put pressure on Israel to follow the road map. I mention pressure on Israel; although the Palestinians also need to do things, at present I want to draw attention to the importance of pressuring Israel to move forward.
	I also want to ask about the Russian suggestion for enriching uranium on Iran's behalf, which has already been mentioned. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, that one cannot rely on the British media for information on such matters. He mentioned being informed by reading papers from New York, or other American papers; we are badly informed on that matter and I would like to hear from the Minister where it stands.
	Lastly, I want to reinforce what has been said by a number of noble Lords about the termination of the proscription of the PMOI, which seems to be extremely desirable in the present circumstances.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, both on securing this timely debate and on his thoughtful introduction. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will forgive me if on this occasion I resist the temptation to embark on a bilateral debate with him. If our contributions appear to be gabbled and somewhat breathless, it reflects the economical ration of time that has been permitted. I am not complaining. Your Lordships' House can boast a ready supply of experience and expertise—everything except time.
	It is unnecessary to argue for the proposition that the Iranian Government are seeking to procure materials and equipment for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Of course the purpose is not to provide civil nuclear energy; it is to terrorise, if not to attack, other sovereign states. The president has proudly announced his aspiration that Israel should be "wiped off the map". This is not the occasion to discuss the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although it is a pleasure, as it is so often, to agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on that subject. It is true that that regime would be seriously threatened, particularly by neighbouring states, if Iran could acquire nuclear weapons without attracting the manifest disapproval of the international community.
	However, there is a more serious aspect to the situation. A nuclear weapon in the hands of the present Iranian Government cannot be equated simply with horizontal proliferation among normal states. That Government are totally indifferent to human life and have sponsored a network of terrorism both inside and outside the borders of Iraq. I shall not repeat what was said so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, but Iran's human rights record is so appalling that it has attracted condemnation by United Nations human rights bodies on 54 occasions, without any response or improvement.
	It is not easy to show a respect we do not feel. There is no future in appeasement. Negotiations with a regime which has repeatedly broken its undertakings before the delegates have returned home are pointless. Sanctions would be a matter for the Security Council, under chapter 7 of the charter, but we all know the difficulties of imposing sanctions of a non-military character. The council's reaction to a proposal for military intervention is not always swift and sure. I doubt that we would see it embark on that light-heartedly. Action unauthorised by the charter would deal a destructive blow to the international rule of law, for which the world would pay a heavy penalty. I agree with those noble Lords who have made that point.
	There are no simple solutions, but the most promising resolution of the dilemma, and the most painless one for the people of Iran, lies with the people of Iran themselves. There can be little doubt that the silent majority want change. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester on that. I say the silent majority; of course, it is not always silent. The Iranian Government admit that in 2004 there were 1,300 demonstrations about the economic and cultural restraints now imposed on the people of Iran. That was in spite of police brutality and repressive sentences.
	This is an unstable regime in all three senses of that word. The people of Iran are looking for a leadership they can respect. I think that is available. It was the National Council of Resistance that in 1991 revealed the nuclear programme, and in 2002 disclosed the site in Natanz. The NCRI has long spearheaded the resistance to the network of international terrorism. Not all resistance comes from outside Iran. There are very courageous advocates within its borders.
	It is tragic that in 1991 the United Kingdom government included in the schedule of terrorist organisations one of the organisations forming the NCRI, the PMOI. It was foremost in condemning the terrorism, yet its members were labelled terrorists. That decision and the procedure by which it was reached have been the subject of concern from jurists and legislators across the world. Some of us gave voice to our disquiet in a debate in your Lordships' House on 27 March 2001. That is history; I do not propose to repeat today what many of your Lordships have said, time and again, over the years. Since the decision to include the PMOI in the schedule was first made, much has changed. It was never suggested—as the former Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Jack Straw, made clear—that there was any question of a threat to the United Kingdom. The PMOI has never been violent outside the borders of Iran. It is true that some members of the PMOI have conducted violent operations within Iran. I do not condone that, but they were carefully targeted against individuals who were practising torture. There was no question of anyone else being in danger.
	In June 2001 the organisation renounced all violence and I understand that that was made known to the United Kingdom Government. It has adhered to that self-imposed prohibition. The preset situation has been investigated and considered by many responsible jurists and politicians. In November, 500 jurists from 15 European countries gave opinions that the PMOI did not belong on that list. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, has considered the questions and reached a similar conclusion. Time is against me, but I should say that he asked me to tell the House that he regrets being absent from this debate, where he would have spoken, but he had an unavoidable commitment elsewhere. If the NCRI were permitted to conduct its business without the shackles imposed by that label, and with a message that its revulsion against the regime is shared by every decent country in Europe, I believe that the solution to our dilemma could be found within Iran, from the Iranian people.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, in this interesting debate, an important contribution was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who pointed out that not only does Iran have an ancient civilisation but it is one that has influenced our own civilisation. It is perfectly true that, in speaking of Iran, we are talking about a country with a very ancient history. It is not a state patched up in the aftermath of the First World War by Sir Percy Cox and other civil servants; it is a state that has had for many centuries some degree of political life—sometimes better, sometimes worse—in the territory which it now occupies. That is probably why most of us who are not experts on Iran are interested.
	I support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who, in an eloquent speech, argued for pressure of different sorts on Iran, and I recognise the subtlety of the subsequent approach by the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, in discussing different types of pressure. However, in putting forward our view that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons programme, we might be more persuasive and effective if we coupled that approach with some recognition that we—Britain, as one of the eight nuclear possessor states—have an obligation to try to do something about nuclear disarmament in the long run. That point was touched upon briefly by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, with whose speech I was in general agreement, although I much disliked her contemptuous use of the word "feudal" as though it were a synonym for evil. So far as I can see, life in Iran today is a good deal worse than it was under the feudal system—in this country at least.
	It is important to stress that. After all, as a nuclear possessor state surely we have a duty to make some plan for the long-term future. All of us who know anything of human history know that, if these weapons exist, in the long run they are bound to be used. Whatever views we may have about deterrence, in the long run they are bound to be used with catastrophic consequences.
	It is fair to recall that in the sometimes regretted days of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union and their allies made token concessions to the idea that in the long run there would be general disarmament—not unilateral but general disarmament. The fact that that matter has rather dropped off the international agenda since 1990 is something that we should regret.
	We should perhaps ask the Foreign Office, through the Minister, to look again at some of those old ideas about nuclear disarmament in the long run, which we have discussed extensively in the past. It may seem a long way from Iran but it is worth recalling that, if the most ambitious disarmament plan of the era of the Cold War—the Baruch plan of 1946—had been accepted by the Soviet Union, it would have made it impossible to develop nuclear material and have nuclear development other than through an international agency.
	It is particularly satisfactory that Germany should be playing such an important part in the negotiations with Iran over the nuclear issue because Germany certainly could, technically speaking, produce nuclear weapons but, for all sorts of reasons, has not been able to do so and, indeed, has not chosen to do so. Other states, such as Canada and Australia and others in Europe, set a very fine example to the rest of the world.
	The policy urged by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and others could, I submit, surely be assisted in being put across if we were all conscious of our obligations to try to do something in the long run to remove the nuclear threat. I will no doubt be dismissed as a dreamer in putting forward this position but in fact I believe that I am a realist.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for securing this timely and most important debate. I declare an interest in that I have been an active supporter of the National Council of Resistance of Iran for almost 20 years.
	For many years, I have heard apologists for the mullahs advocating continued dialogue with the wicked regime in Iran. I have said on a number of occasions that it was of course necessary to attempt to reach an accommodation on the nuclear programme—the nuclear programme exposed by the National Council of Resistance, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. More recently, the National Council of Resistance has exposed and pinpointed the secret underground nuclear tunnels in at least 14 sites near Tehran, Esfahan and Qom. It is reported that these underground sites are used, in particular, for hiding research centres, workshops, nuclear equipment and nuclear and missile command and control centres. The building work on those sites commenced as early as 1989. It is now time to stop the talking and face the reality. The reality is that those in power in Iran were simply playing for time while they continued with their nuclear development programme. In my view, the time was passed some while ago.
	Voices in many parts of the world have been raised in an attempt to point out the folly of attempted appeasement of a vicious and evil regime—a government with a record of human rights abuses that are well documented in a number of reports to the United Nations. I am sure that Members of this House will have learnt from the state-run media in Iran that at least seven people were hanged and 11 sentenced to death in the first two weeks of this year. I say to those who try to draw a parallel between the summary execution of innocent people in Iran and the judicial system in America that there is no parallel at all. The 16-year-old girl who was hanged from a lamppost for arguing with a judge did not have the right to appeal. She did not have an army of lawyers to look after her—she was simply taken out and hanged—and a boy of 14 was beaten to death for eating during Ramadan. Comparisons with America's judicial system are odious and unnecessary and wrong in this debate. The reports of the recent hangings and executions are not my words. They are from the mullah's own approved media outlets—Javan and the state-run new agency Irna. The executions included public hangings.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I am not a lawyer like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I can speak only as I hear. If I got the wrong impression, I apologise unreservedly, but the House will know what I was trying to say. They are not my words but come from the agency that is supported by the regime. Tragically there are hundreds of examples of the state-run media proclaiming what the Government have done. My noble friend Lady Gould graphically described some of them today.
	There are evil people who perpetrate torture, executions, denial of human rights, the export of terrorism—those are not my words, but the words of the Prime Minister. Tony Blair has told the world that Iran exports terrorism and finances terrorist groups. They are the hallmarks of a regime that wants a nuclear arsenal, but for what purpose we should ask. Is it to defend Iran, or to put into practice the destruction of Israel as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated he wants to do? We have to decide what the real reason is.
	To their credit, the British Government, together with other European nations, have tried to maintain constructive dialogue with these dreadful people who think little of killing innocent children, and to address the persecution of those who seek to expose the reality of life in Iran. The need for encouraging the opposition that exists in Iran now is so evident. Those who say that only the Iranian people can bring about change in Iran are right. The only effective voice for change is the National Council of Resistance of Iran. If the opposition in Iran is denied the right to criticise or speak out, it is our duty to assist those who seek real democracy in Iran—not the sham elections that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.
	Here in our safe democracy we should look at what happened before the most recent elections. Out of more than 1,000 potential candidates only eight were approved by the Guardian Council, which is the mullah's watchdog. That is why our Government should now do the honourable thing and remove the label of terrorism from the PMOI. To his credit, our Foreign Secretary has now confessed that more than four years ago when he was Home Secretary he conceded the ban to the Iranian Foreign Minister. On Wednesday of last week, he admitted in an interview on Radio 4 that the Iranian Government demanded it—and he conceded to impose the ban.
	I remember the occasion well because I went to speak to Mr Straw in his office at the time, when he was Home Secretary. I reminded him of when we were at the Labour Party conference, which I had the privilege of chairing. I looked up at the gallery and said, "We have our friends from the People's Mojahedin of Iran with us". Everybody, including the people on the platform, welcomed them to our conference. I reminded Mr Straw of our time in opposition when we had good relations with the National Council of Resistance. To this day I cannot understand why a nation such as ours could give such comfort to brutal bullies. There is now sufficient evidence to confirm that the PMOI has renounced violence. I welcome the decision to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
	Finally, I urge those who think my views are strident to read the Commons Hansard report of last Wednesday. An excellent speech was made by Mr David Gauke, the Member for South West Hertfordshire. His analysis and balanced contribution to the debate on Iran's nuclear programme is well worth reading. Our Government should do everything they can to help the people of Iran to throw off the yoke of tyranny.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, like many others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for enabling the debate to take place. It is particularly timely because of the nuclear threat. He dealt with it sombrely as has been said, but directly and clearly, and I do not think that I can add much to his remarks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that we should realise how Iranians see us, given the interference for which we have been responsible. I do not dissent from that, but it is a profound mistake to regard the government in Iran as truly representative of Iranian opinion. We are dealing with a country where those espousing a fundamentalist form of Islam, which rejects all the tenets of liberal democracy, are in repressive control. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, described the consequences for human rights, especially women's rights. I do not need to repeat them, but a short paragraph from this month's Foreign Affairs sums up the position very well, and shows that there has been no new development. It states:
	"In the aftermath of the 1979 revolution, Iran's new government quickly suspended the country's progressive family law, disallowed female judges, and strongly enforced the wearing of the hijab. Within a few months, sharia rulings lowered the marriage age to nine"—
	I repeat, nine—
	"permitted polygamy, gave fathers the right to decide who their daughters could marry, permitted unilateral divorce for men but not women, and gave fathers sole custody of children in the case of divorce"—
	a splendid judicial base on which to build a country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, has far more experience of these questions, but I do not see how we can have an effective dialogue with such a regime. All we can do is support those Iranians—perhaps the majority of its youthful population—who want an open and fair society.
	As was said by the previous speaker, this task has been undertaken by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is a broad coalition, and which is publicly clearly committed to a democratic Iran with full religious freedom on a secular basis and human rights. I have witnessed the huge support for it among Iranians living in Europe, having taken part in rallies in Paris, where there were about 40,000 people and in Brussels where there were about 35,000. It was not reported by the BBC Farsi Service, which has been accused by the council of considerable bias. It is not a question of bias of the BBC in toto because there are no complaints about the Arabic Service or the World Service—only the Farsi Service.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, suggested that Iranians outside the country had only limited influence. With great respect, I query that. Mrs Rajavi is well regarded by many in Iran who admire her courage, tenacity and objectives. Her broadcasts have had great impact within the country. There was a moment when I thought that perhaps the Foreign Office would follow this route. I remind noble Lords of the moment when the late Robin Cook spoke of his wish for an ethical foreign policy. The mandarins in the Foreign Office quickly disposed of that idea, but it remains in the minds of many. The latest Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, admitted on the BBC last week that he agreed to have the PMOI proscribed as a terrorist organisation following a conversation with the Foreign Minister of Iran. That says it all. It is widely believed that that policy was part of the failed European Union attempt to persuade the theocratic regime to abandon its nuclear policy.
	On Tuesday morning—the day before yesterday—I was in Luxembourg at the European Court of Justice when the case against the definition of the PMOI as terrorists was brought. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has set this out clearly, so I need not repeat what he said, except to say that I agree with him. It was made clear at the hearing that it happened because of British pressure. Britain was directly represented. There was a European Council advocate and there was a lady advocate representing the United Kingdom. She suggested that other member states agreed with Britain but refused to specify which they were, although she said that if she had been asked before, she would have been willing to give that information. We found that rather incredible. She stated that there were regular reviews of this question. When did the last review take place? When is the next review due? Lastly, she produced no justification for the classification of the PMOI; presumably it goes back to when they were acting as insurgents against the regime. They were undoubtedly engaged in hostilities at that time.
	The Government should change their position. I know how difficult it is for any government to admit that they have been wrong. I understand the wish to get the regime to abandon its nuclear aims. Now, however, the Government must admit that the policy has been wrong and that the right thing to do is clearly to support the Iranians who want democracy.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell. This debate is both timely and vital.
	The Minister will be delighted to know that my speech will be brief. Four simple questions need to be asked about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On two occasions, he has stated that Iran will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. For the first time, one member of the United Nations is advocating the total annihilation of another member. Is this political posturing, or does he mean it? He has said that Iran is developing nuclear technology because Iranians need the capability to produce nuclear power, but Iran is a country swimming in oil. Why would it be making tremendous sacrifices to develop a technology that it could not conceivably need for 50 years? He absolutely denies that his country has any intention of developing nuclear weapons. But who believes him? Again, is this political posturing or does he mean it?
	It has been reported that, having made a speech in which he denied that the Holocaust ever happened, President Ahmadinejad's government is this very week sponsoring a competition for the best cartoons depicting the Holocaust, in response to the sad Danish cartoon situation. Again, is this political posturing or does he mean what he says?
	Finally, President Ahmadinejad says that he wants to promote a world Caliphate to be run by Iran. I ask again, is this political posturing or does he mean it?
	I do not believe such statements are posturing. I believe them to be true. If they are true, we certainly have a very serious problem on our hands. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, makes a plea for patience, but time is running out. Some of those close to the matter believe that Iran will have its own nuclear bomb within the next 12 months. It is also developing ballistic capability. It is reported that Iran has tested rockets with a range of 1,500 km. Put bomb and rocket together, and political posturing no longer looks like rhetoric.
	Let us look at the targets in Iran's sights. Coalition troops—British, American, Australian and others—located just across the borders of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are all within easy target. Finally, Israel—a country with no borders with Iran; indeed, a country separated from Iran by two intermediate countries.
	If President Ahmadinejad means what he says, then he needs to be resolutely deterred from any mischief making. We need firm and sensitive diplomacy, but we also need to send him a very clear message that if Iran attacks any country the consequences for him and for his country will be severe and appropriate.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, both for the initiative in choosing this subject and for his wise words—the words of a sadly all-too gloomy, "head-shaking about the sins of the world" kind of former Foreign Secretary. One can understand why. Many of his points were extremely important and significant, and have been repeated on a number of occasions by other speakers in this debate.
	I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, about the disturbing lack of UK press news on the subject. The same thing applies to the whole of the Middle East, and what is happening in Israel and Palestine. There is little detailed news in the British press. I know that it is expensive to have foreign correspondents in these hugely extended areas but, because Iraq is so dangerous, there is a concentration there. They stay in the green zone, and we get very little news from them. I am glad, as the noble Lord said, that the US is co-operating with the EU3. I will return to that in a moment.
	We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, for his wise words and his knowledge and experience of that country. Although he is a gentleman in every sense of the word—if I may embarrass him by saying so—he sounded suitably fierce about the present regime in Iran and what should be done about it. I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Chidgey, for his wise words, as well as my noble friend Baroness Williams of Crosby. I only wish time would allow me to mention others.
	We ask the Minister to give us some answers to the points that have been raised. However, that is easier to ask than to deliver—not because the Minister is not capable of doing so, but because nothing is more complicated and dispiriting than this looming crisis with Iran. For once, the West, as represented by the EU3 in this context, can be thanked for some exceedingly patient diplomacy. We can also thank the IAEA for having been so patient. Back in November 2003 the chairman was already giving solemn warnings about what Iran was doing in flouting its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
	As a good European—I hope—I assert that it is not Europe's fault that no progress has so far been made. Indeed, the reverse is the case; it looks like a dispiriting failure. Europe—the EU3 and the whole of the Union—needs to be heavily engaged. In that context, we on these Benches fully support the Government and wish them well in dealing with these complex matters. All the options are fraught with difficulties. On the future nature of the Iranian governmental system, its so-called democratic structures are sometimes more robust than we imagine, mostly in demonstrations against the regime, when harsh measures are taken.
	However, people note what is going on, even with the limited news. We see the oppressive straitjacket of the mullahs' regime alongside the mad ranting of President Ahmadinejad. Whether he means what he says is an interesting point, but the international community has a duty to ensure that what he has recently said, about Israel and so on, is never realised.
	The Iranian diaspora is enormous and complex. Recently, even Reza Pahlavi—the son of the former Shah of Iran—has been making suggestions about democracy, despite the rather obnoxious features of his father's regime. We can perhaps take some of his suggestions with a pinch of salt; I hope I am not being unfair to the children of the former Shah.
	Americans and others are rash to seek to intervene in such dangerous territory and tell them what to do. The future of Iran belongs to the Iranian people and their decisions will count. That should be the international norm, except if they need assistance from outside of a peaceful kind in which case we should ensure that they have it.
	No one can just allow Iran's international defiance of reasonable requests to go on without the international community responding to the latent danger. Israel is understandably deeply alarmed at the potential nuclear threat if Iran goes ahead with the Iranian enrichment in total defiance of the international proscription against it under the NPT. Equally, however, Israel would gain more worldwide respect—and in Arabia and Iran—if it, too, said that it was now going to adhere to the NPT and accept all the treaty obligations and duties arising from it. Why should Israel be the exception that causes a certain amount of anger and resentment in Arabia, Iran and elsewhere? Sensible Israelis know that and are well-aware of it. Israel has understandably been made, by the United States, the unbeatable military power; to protect and defend itself, to ensure that it is not attacked, ruined or invaded. Nor is there any sign of anyone being able to do that. The quid pro quo is that Israel fully joins the international community and the UN Security Council in making general, collective rules of action and behaviour and suggestions for the peace of the whole area, including the development of the nuclear-free zone, as my noble friend Lady Williams said. That must be one of the priorities for the international community and the United Nations.
	President Ahmadinejad, with his extraordinary outbursts—I suppose they are populist, rallying outbursts and therefore intended for national, internal consumption, but I presume that we all notice what he says—has done a real disservice to his people by hardening opinion against his country abroad in general. It makes it much harder for sensible Ministers—there must be some; I presume that one or two moderate mullahs are around as well—to prevail in that kind of climate. Gradually, the secular population will be forced against its will to support this eccentric president.
	Now that Russia and China have joined fully in the criticism, and all five of the veto-bearing members of the United Nations Security Council are standing by for a possible resolution, which could include the imposition of sanctions, this is the critical moment. We therefore require guidance from the Minister about what the Government think can now happen. Will EU3 continue to operate just as a trio within the wider European Union in reporting to and liaising with the Security Council? Will the United States, which has been co-operating hitherto, continue to do that too and to reassure outside opinion that it will support what the whole of the United Nations Security Council decides, and not interfere in the wrong sense as it has in other countries? One is always worried about tendencies even in the Mark II Bush presidency. Some people would not readily agree that it is significantly different from Mark I, but we can leave that matter open.
	I remember being in Baghdad in 1988, when it was full of American and British businessmen, politicians and officials who were saying that Saddam Hussein's government were the most wonderful government in the whole of Arabia. It was an efficient regime which bought a lot of our military equipment. They were very opposed to Iran. Even when the gassing in Halabja had taken place, we all recall the Americans saying that the Iranians had done that and not Saddam Hussein.
	So our perceptions at a particular time can be misleading. We often regret them later on. Now is a time for collective wisdom in the United Nations and in the European Union's own deliberations about what to do. One welcomes also the opinion of the 10 new member states, including the two Mediterranean islands.
	No one wants to alienate the Iranian people from what they perceive as the basic, built-in unfairness of the wider picture. That is an important issue. Other countries are allowed to pursue nuclear energy and peaceful nuclear activity. The United States is perceived by many people in Iran as often flouting international rules of behaviour and law. Israel is doing exactly what it likes without restraint in the occupied West Bank. More and more people think that is because of a secret agreement between Bush and Sharon. Arabia and the wider Muslim world remain unimpressed by the continuing double standards about which the United Nations does all too little for all sorts of different mechanistic reasons.
	However, Iran has to be realistic. Does it really need to do its own uranium enrichment? The answer is no. Why did it brush aside the Russian offer? I admit that it was probably made cynically, but it was a reasonable and genuine offer. If it wishes to resume its own peaceful activities, can those activities then be separated from the looming danger that they later turn into military activities? Those activities must be conducted under the non-proliferation treaty arrangements and full IAEA supervision. North Korea left the treaty, but Iran has so far wisely stayed in it. Surely, therefore, Iran needs the security guarantee package that has been proposed in the EU, in some quarters of the UN and elsewhere. That may be one the main areas in which the Minister will enlighten us today. How will that package be constructed? Will he refer also to the question of possible sanctions?
	In the mean time, do not let us antagonise Iranian moderates with premature sanctions until all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted beyond all reasonable doubt. Iran has a final opportunity to step back from nationalistic recklessness and to co-operate fully with the inspectors. Far from that being a humiliation, it is just the normal behaviour of any adherent to the NPT treaty. That would avoid the loss of patience that the United Nations as a whole will inevitably feel if no Iranian response is forthcoming. The stakes are high, but the prize would be great if this turns out well.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I join with others in warmly thanking my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell for initiating the debate and for the magisterial overview with which he launched it. I thank also your Lordships for the brevity and briskness of many of the contributions. The digital clock seems to have gone a little awry, but the good old analogue clock tells us that the Minister will have ample time in which to answer all the questions.
	This is a time of great danger. I agree with noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who emphasised that point. I agree, too, with the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, that Iran is bound to press ahead. Anyone who really knows anything about the mentality and attitudes in Tehran at the moment will know that that Government and those people will press ahead with nuclear development and move towards a weapons capability. They tried to do it in secrecy with the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and other developments—which were revealed and ceased to be secret—but they have pressed on. Frankly, all that stands in the way of Iran's move to possess nuclear weapons are technological and technical factors. Those might be considerable. There could be difficulties over the further development of Iran's uranium enrichment plants, and there could be some delays in the missile programme as well. Most of its missiles are in the "yet-to-fly" category. That is our only hope, but it is a slender hope on which to base our intentions and our desire to see stability in the region.
	It is a crucially dangerous time. It is so, first, for the obvious reason that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, proliferation will cascade throughout the region. Countries such as Egypt would perhaps want to be in on the act as well. That is an enormous danger, leading to even further instability and turmoil in the Middle East.
	It is a dangerous time, secondly, because the Western response is not working and is not going to work. Many noble Lords will disagree with that. Neither EU diplomacy nor American belligerence will stop the Iranians moving ahead on the path which they have taken. On the contrary, they will make things worse. Mutterings from Washington about the use of force or the latest, almost alarmingly dotty, rumour that three brigades are being put together to invade Iran by land are just what the hard-line mullahs and Mr Ahmadinejad need. He wants nothing more than the opportunity to defy the West. The more the diplomatic gentility of the EU drags on, and the more the mutterings from Washington about the use of force and bombing continue, the more delighted he becomes and the more certain it is that the programme for nuclear development will be accelerated. I am sure that that is correct.
	Will targeted smart sanctions from the United Nations help? I wish I shared the view of wise people such as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that this is the path that we should go along, and that pressure of a kind will have some effect on the Iranians. I wish that I could be an optimist along with them, but I am not—first, for the obvious reason that the United Nations will never agree.
	China has stated that it is against sanctions "on principle". It has said that it will never vote for sanctions. So that avenue is blocked. Secondly, we all know from bitter experience that sanctions do not work at all well and hit the poorest, however smart they are, and they usually have the effect of entrenching the incumbent government, which would make Mr Ahmadinejad's position stronger, which his just what he needs.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, although it was much neglected in your Lordships' debate, Iran's response to sanctions could be devastating. It could not only cut its own oil production—it is the second biggest oil exporter in the world and although it has promised OPEC that it will not do so, it is, in fact, perfectly ready to do so—but it could do much worse than that. It could mine the Straits of Hormuz, or sink a few vessels in them, and halt up to 18 million barrels of oil a day, which is about a quarter of the entire global consumption of oil. The outcome of that would be a massive world financial and energy crisis that would deeply hurt all countries, including our own, in ways that we have not experienced since the full-blown wars of the twentieth century. That is not appreciated when people talk about whether they would do this or that or use force against Iran. We are dealing with a desperately dangerous situation in which Iran could bring the roof down, not only own its own head, but on ours as well.
	Is there a silver lining to all this? Yes, there is. I have tried to explain it in an article in today's International Herald Tribune. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, reads it.  The effect of all this could be to make the move to a low energy world—the green revolution—a lot more likely. Noble Lords will remember that last time there was an oil price explosion—also triggered, ironically, by events in Iran—it all turned to dust. Oil prices collapsed, after a lot of speeches from people, including me, that they were going to stay high, from $95 equivalent to $9 in a few months. All the investment in new oil alternatives, green energy, nuclear, compact cars—the whole lot—was shelved. Nothing happened. This time, Mr Ahmadinejad and the Iranians have injected real fear into the oil market. This fear is probably as effective, or more effective, than any amount of speeches by the American president on "addiction to oil" or talk about carbon reduction targets that we all know are not being met and will not be met. While I repeat that the dangers of the situation are great, and that, in the end, Mr Ahamdinejad will ruin Iran and impoverish its people, as some noble Lords have rightly said, in the mean time, perhaps we should say "Thank you" to him for a clear sign that oil will remain not just very expensive, but extremely unreliable and a wonderful, but very dangerous commodity.
	One or two other questions have arisen in the debate. One is on the role of the exiles, about which my noble friend Lord Waddington spoke eloquently and passionately. My hesitant view is that they should be listened to, but not relied upon. I hope that the position of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran will be kept under review by the Government and that they will have open minds and watch the position very carefully indeed. My noble friend Lord Waddington, the noble Lords, Lord Russell-Johnston and Lord Mitchell, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and other noble Lords said some very wise words. I hope that the Government are listening to what they say on what I recognise is a difficult situation on which one cannot leap to a particular position just like that.
	Finally, there are two evident longer-term possibilities in what is otherwise an extremely gloomy, dangerous situation. We have inadequate responses to deal with them. They are that only the great Asian powers—China, India, and Japan—plus Russia can bring real pressure to bear on this Iranian regime with all its atrocities, evils and cruelties that we have heard described so graphically today. The Foreign Secretary should not be going to Brussels so much and thinking so much about what is said in Washington; he should be visiting—not summoning—Beijing, Delhi, Tokyo and Moscow. They are the countries with real leverage on Iran. China has a £70 billion gas contract with Iran and gets 14 per cent of its oil daily from Iran. Japan has huge investments in Iran and is in the same sort of position. Russia supplies civil nuclear assistance and air defence supplies and has major links and influence with Iran. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Russia may be offering the possibility of a way out of the labyrinth with its uranium enrichment offer. That is the first point, which seems to me to be obvious, but understated. We in the West are not in a position to solve this problem alone: it is as much an Asian problem as a European or American one. We should recognise that. A too Western or Euro-centric approach will make things worse, not better.
	Secondly, it is clear that the non-proliferation treaty regime faces a crisis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, rightly observed. It is obvious that it must be reformed to overcome its weaknesses, to embrace the new nuclear and would-be nuclear nations and to ensure that, even if they go this route, it is very transparent and collaborative and an effective pathway to the other NPT goals which people always forget about, which are sustained and organised disarmament and the development of safe, civil nuclear energy. Those are the aims and we must somehow embrace Iranian ambitions in them. These are the ways to contain a crisis—

Lord Howell of Guildford: No, my Lords. That is an over-simplification of a much more complicated thought, which is that at present we are dealing with an NPT regime with the five existing nuclear powers at its core. The reality is that there are more existing nuclear powers and—the noble Lord does not accept this, but I tell him will happen—Iran will get nuclear weapons. I ask the noble Lord whether he will hang on to the NPT in those circumstances, or will he recognise that we must embrace an Iran with nuclear weapons in a new collaborative, transparent regime. That is the issue that he, and high officials of state in his former department, will have to face. I urge them to face it sooner rather than later. Those are the remarks I have to offer to your Lordships in a fascinating debate.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I accept that that is precisely what the Russians are offering to do, and there may well be more general applicability in the sense of a virtual bank with a number of contributors. I just make the point that the IAEA is still expressing technical reservations about whether it can be done in reality but that does not rule out the idea in any respect.
	The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked how close we thought the Iranians were to constructing a nuclear weapon. I do not want to speculate too much but by the end of the decade is the best advice that we have at the moment. Much of the technical equipment from the Khan research laboratories is plainly in their hands.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked what we regarded as the next step. I shall put it in context. We must consider the background against which the IAEA special board meeting took place last week. That was the next step to get the agreement of the members of that board and to then take the following step of making the reference to the United Nations. It is not just Iran's 18-year history of concealment and its failure to take steps to give us confidence in its nuclear intentions that have caused disquiet in the international community; as noble Lords have said, it is also its approach to the Middle East peace process and to Iraq, its attitude towards terrorism and its human rights record.
	We have all been appalled—nauseated—by President Ahmadinejad's denial of the existence of the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel, which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, described as,
	"sickening, horrific hostility to the Israel".
	The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, put the point in terms. Recently, the president met leaders of Islamic Jihad in Damascus while its bombs were killing and injuring civilians in Israel. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, in a careful and balanced approach, said that it was right and important to describe the harm done to the Iranian people through this kind of demagogic statement.
	We have a longstanding concern that groups seeking to undermine the Middle East peace process through violence draw support from inside Iran. We are concerned by its approach to terrorism and the nature of its relationship with Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. We have repeatedly pressed Iran to renounce all support for groups using terror and violence, and to support a solution to the Palestinian question based on the principle of two states living side by side in peace and security. The EU has said that progress in its relations with Iran will depend on action by Iran to deal with those concerns, including its approach to terrorism and its attitude to the Middle East peace process.
	Iran has other responsibilities in the region. It is vital that the neighbours of Iraq and Afghanistan feel that, as things develop towards more democratic societies, they can do so also within a framework of peace and security. Iran has given many public undertakings to improve border security, fight terrorism and not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan, and I welcome those commitments. Iran must resist the temptation to interfere in the political stability of its neighbours. We continue to investigate extremist Shia groups in Iraq and their links to Iran. The particular nature of some of the explosive devices used in Iraq against British troops lead us either to Iranian elements or to Lebanese Hezbollah.
	Against that background, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, we must respect Iran; we should all make efforts to do so. But, as I am sure everyone accepts, respect cannot cloak the sense that Iran's human rights violations cannot continue. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, made the point with passion. I have also read Mr Gauke's speech and think that it is an extremely important contribution. Iran's human rights record is grim and deteriorating. The EU has been clear that our relations with Iran can move forward only if Iran takes action to address the EU's human rights concerns. We frequently express those concerns. We are particularly concerned about Iran's treatment of religious minorities, juvenile offenders and political activists.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, made the point about violence against women. The words "violation of human rights" hardly encompass what is being done to women in those circumstances. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, it does not help to apply the kind of relativism of talking about these things in a historical sequence. When faults appear in the penal system of the United Kingdom, we do not justify that by referring to Judge Jeffreys's judicial regime. Those are not the right comparisons; there are much more direct standards that are accepted and applied throughout the world—and so they should be.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable Friend in another place.
	"Mr Speaker, the previous Administration established the Child Support Agency because the system of collecting maintenance through the courts had lost the confidence of parents. It was the right decision. Different courts applied different criteria, resulting in widely differing settlements for families in similar situations. Too often cases took months to come to court. Enforcement was difficult and costly.
	"The Child Support Agency was designed to provide better support to children and families by making sure parental responsibilities were properly enforced. These were the right foundations upon which to build the new agency. It is why the Child Support Act 1991 enjoyed widespread support. But as we now know, over the years these good intentions have not been translated into good performance. When we came to office the agency cost more to run than it collected in maintenance and it was taking longer to process claims than the courts.
	"The 2000 Act made important changes. Maintenance calculations were simplified. For the first time, parents on benefits could keep up to £10 of the maintenance they received. Tougher enforcement measures were introduced. The performance of the agency has improved. It has nearly doubled the number of children receiving maintenance payments. Around £600 million of maintenance will be collected this year, twice the level of 1997. This improved performance is a credit to the hard work of the agency staff, who are doing a good job in very difficult circumstances. They have had to cope with a great deal of criticism—much of it unfair—and I want to place firmly on record my appreciation for their commitment and dedication.
	"However, notwithstanding the efforts of its staff, the performance of the agency remains unacceptable. It currently manages 1.5 million cases. Of the 670,000 cases assessed as having a positive maintenance liability, just over 400,000 parents with care are actually receiving any payment via the collection service, or have a maintenance direct arrangement in place. There is a backlog of over 300,000 cases. Despite having collected £4.5 billion, more than £3 billion of debt has built up. It has already cost the taxpayer well over £3 billion to administer.
	"Only 30 per cent of lone parents receive maintenance. Fewer than 15 per cent of lone parents on benefit receive any maintenance through the CSA. There is little evidence to suggest that outcomes are any better than under the courts system it replaced. That is why last April my right honourable Friend, the Member for Hull West and Hessle, asked the new chief executive of the CSA to undertake a review of the agency's operations. I am publishing his recommendations today on my department's website.
	"The review recommended a restructuring of the agency's operation to increase productivity and performance. It proposed a plan that included migration and conversion, new legislative powers to write-off debt and close cases, and the greater use of outsourcing to support the removal of backlogs and collect debt. The plan required an additional £300 million of new public money over the next three years, over and above the agency's £400 million a year budget.
	"However, even if the plan were fully implemented, at the end of the three-year period only half of lone parents would receive maintenance. Only one third of lone parents on benefit would be receiving any money. And while more parents would receive maintenance, around half of those assessed would be eligible to receive only £5 or less per week. In those circumstances I do not believe it would be right to commit £300 million of additional public expenditure in this way.
	"The CSA deals with many of the most difficult cases. In one in five cases the parents have never lived together. Five per cent question paternity. Half of absent parents have no contact at all with their children. Some 15 per cent have links to other cases—often more than one. Seventy per cent of new applications are on benefit and so have no choice but to use the CSA. Given this complexity, we should be suspicious of simple solutions. There are none. Walking away is not the answer. Neither is simply handing over the work of the CSA in its existing structure to another government department. Over 500,000 children are currently benefiting from maintenance payments collected through the CSA. We must ensure this continues.
	"However, it is time for fundamental change. Having had an opportunity to consider this over the past three months, I have concluded that neither the agency nor the policy is fit for purpose. Therefore, I have asked Sir David Henshaw—a distinguished public servant—to completely redesign our system of child support. The primary objective must be to ensure the welfare of children. Sir David will set out both the policy and operational structure needed to achieve this. He will need to consider how best to ensure parents meet their responsibilities to their children, while minimising the cost to the taxpayer.
	"In undertaking his task, Sir David will need to address several difficult choices and questions. What support and advice can be given to help parents reach a fair solution as to how best to support their children in the event of their relationship breaking down? Can we find a more cost-effective way of ensuring children get maintenance payments? What is the right balance between enforcing responsibilities, getting more money to children and value for the taxpayer? Should benefit claimants be forced to use the agency even if they have informal arrangements in place? Should the Government continue to chase cases where the parents have decided to get back together again and restart their relationship? In some instances, the agency is chasing cases where the end result will be recycling money in the same household, with no benefit to the child.
	"There will be an opportunity for all those in this House and beyond to make their views known to Sir David and his team. He will be seeking the widest possible involvement in his work. Just as the original proposals commanded widespread cross-party endorsement, my ambition is to make sure that this new framework enjoys a similar level of support. I have asked Sir David to deliver his findings to me before the Summer Recess and today I have placed in the Library copies of the terms of reference for his work. These have been drawn as widely as possible to allow all of the options for reform to be fully considered.
	"The Government have a clear responsibility to those already using the agency to ensure that it delivers for children and parents. Therefore I am publishing today proposals which will help to stabilise and improve the performance of the agency in the short term. The plan will make more effective use of current enforcement powers, improve the productivity and effectiveness of the new IT system and increase debt recovery.
	"I am making available up to £90 million of investment over the next three years, from the department's existing resources, to support this short-term recovery. This investment will of course be subject to review in the light of Sir David's work and achievement of agreed milestones. In addition, I am making a further £30 million available to contract out some of the agency's debt recovery. I expect this to result in a substantially increased recovery of the current debt owed to parents with care.
	"The CSA will take quicker and firmer action on those who default on payment. Supported by changes to the secondary legislation, we will increase the use and effectiveness of deduction from earning orders. The CSA will also be able to make more progress in clearing up the growing backlog of cases. And we will draw on data held by credit reference agencies to help speed up enforcement. I will consider tougher enforcement measures that require primary legislation. However, these will need to be addressed as part of the redesigned child support system.
	"The extra investment will mean that by 2008 we will improve compliance rates, ensure that 200,000 more children benefit from maintenance payments, be on track to help lift an additional 40,000 children out of poverty, and see a significant increase in the number of parents receiving child maintenance premium.
	"Given the considerable cost and risks involved, the stabilisation and improvement plan will stop short of converting all of the old scheme cases into the new scheme. I know that conversion is a matter of concern to many members of the House—rightly so. I have asked Sir David to consider this as part of the redesign of child support. We must come to a decision on the right way forward as soon as possible.
	"I believe that Members on all sides continue to support the original objectives of the Child Support Agency. The measures that I am announcing today are an important step towards improving the current arrangements and critically putting in place the foundations for a system of child support that will have a better chance of meeting those objectives. Relationships, as we all know, come to an end. Responsibilities do not. I know every Member of this House will want to make sure that this fundamental truth must underpin any new arrangements.
	"I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, for what I am sure they meant to be constructive comments on the Statement. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his tribute to my noble friend Lady Hollis. We all hope that she will be back in her place as soon as possible. I pay tribute to her for her eight years' stewardship of the Child Support Agency, which at all times was pretty challenging. I very much admire the work she did. Whether I am so fortunate in inheriting her portfolio in that respect will have to be judged over the next few months.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that children should be supported by both parents, even where their relationship has broken down. That must be the intent of any development and redesign of child support arrangements. It was the intent behind the new system introduced in 1993. The noble Lord referred a little to the history of child support since then. He also referred to the very complicated formula which the 2001 changes were designed to change. There have been many operational problems throughout the history of the CSA and the introduction of the 2001 changes has clearly not brought about the changes that were desired, although I think the actual assessment system has stood the test of time. Rough and ready though it might be, it has been one great asset of the changes.
	On conversion, I would not wish the noble Lord to think that I said "never". It is our view that the system as it stands is not yet ready for conversion, but we will look to Sir David to advise us more on that matter in his proposals to redesign the system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, quoted a number of figures about performance between old and new systems. One has to be very wary about making direct comparisons because the circumstances of both systems were different. But I would not walk away from the proposition that the overall performance of the Child Support Agency has simply not been acceptable. The Statement is a clear acceptance of that fact.
	The review by Stephen Geraghty was very good, but we decided that the £300 million extra public expenditure was too risky and costly for us to make such a decision. That is why we have given Mr Geraghty the green light to institute a modified review which will cost £120 million altogether. That will be focused on increasing the numbers of staff and dealing with clients at the front line and retraining the excellent staff who have had an awful lot to put up with over the past 13 years. Over the next two to three years, we expect to see significant improvements. But as the Statement made clear, it is not only the operational matters about which we are concerned. Our analysis, which I believe is confirmed by the work of Mr Stephen Geraghty, is that the whole child support system is not fit for purpose. That is why we have asked Sir David to undertake the task of starting with a blank sheet of paper and suggesting a wholesale redesign of the system.
	I do not want to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, dictionary definitions of "redesign" and "review". Telling the House that we wish to redesign the system is an acceptance that the current system will simply not do. Therefore, we are going much further than simply having a review—we are asking Sir David to undertake the task of suggesting to us the wholesale redesign of child support arrangements.
	Anyone reading Sir David's CV would conclude that he has many qualities. He has an outstanding career in the public sector. For those who think we should look to Australia for clues about how child support should be organised in the future, Sir David is also a former Visiting Fellow of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I believe that he is an excellent choice.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, talked about having someone from the private sector. Although Mr Stephen Geraghty, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, started life a very long time ago as an employee of the Inland Revenue, most of his highly successful career has been spent in the private sector. He has experience of banking and insurance, including running contact centres. Essentially, the CSA is a very large contact centre, albeit with very complicated matters to undertake. We have someone in post who understands the kind of operations that the CSA undertakes and has private sector experience.
	On whether we should go down the route suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, in terms of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the point my right honourable friend was making in the other place, in a somewhat robust way, is that you cannot take an agency that faces many problems and troubles and simply plonk it under the auspices of another agency. Equally, we understand that the work of the CSA is very complicated. It is dealing with adults whose lives in many cases have become very disrupted, as shown by the figures that I quoted in the Statement. In half the cases that the CSA is concerned with, the non-resident parents have no contact with their children and one in five have not had a relationship together. Those are stunning figures and they show the complexity of the situation. With the greatest respect to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, it does not have the experience of dealing with those types of matters. Of course we will listen to and await with great interest Sir David's work. As the Statement made clear, we will invite parliamentarians to contribute to that work.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I welcome the new design but I want to ask about experience in other countries in Europe. Presumably, every country has this problem and finds the solution very difficult. Will Sir David Henshaw in the time that he has been given before the summer recess be able to look at the experience in other European countries in particular?

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: rose to call attention to recent developments affecting freedom of speech; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, since history began and all throughout time, there have been declarations about the significance of free speech as a crucial part of a free society. In the first century AD, an emperor of Rome said,
	"In a free state, there must be free speech".
	The 16th, 17th and 18th centuries voiced agreement. In 1575, an MP in Parliament said,
	"There is nothing so necessary for the preservation of the state as free speech".
	Milton followed that a century later with,
	"Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely, according to conscience, above all liberties".
	Another hundred years on, a judge in the High Court said,
	"Human laws ought not to interpose, nay cannot interpose, to prevent the communication of sentiments and opinions".
	There is no shortage of similar quotes for the last two centuries either, but I want to get on. Let us acknowledge that freedom of speech is still, as it always has been, the main concomitant of a free society, and if the former goes, then the latter will, too. I believe that the Government support this view. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said in this House that we,
	"need to protect our freedom of expression and freedom of speech".—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1071.]
	Indeed we do; it is vanishing before our eyes. This debate is about recognising this, and stopping it.
	The emperor, the judge, the MP and Milton must be spinning in their graves today. Simply for reading out the names of dead soldiers during a peaceful demonstration near the Cenotaph, a young woman was arrested, charged and convicted, and she now has a criminal record. That cannot be right; she was not threatening, nor inciting anyone to murder, nor had plans to be a suicide bomber. She was simply reading out a list of names. For that she is listed as a criminal, and 20 more similar cases are pending. A woman taking part in a radio programme said she thought that two men should not be allowed to adopt a young boy—others might possibly agree. She was telephoned by the police and informed that her name had been recorded on a police register for what she had said. A 74-year-old black man was surrounded by police and ordered to remove a placard which he had hung round his neck. Was it urging people to riot, to behead infidels or to attack property? Not exactly; it read, "Jesus Christ is lord" and urged repentance. I cannot see why that should be an arrestable offence, but apparently it was.
	I well remember the sandwich men, as they used to be called, wandering the London streets with similar notices in the past. There was one regular whose message read,
	"Repent, for the end of the world is nigh".
	It was not, but no one minded and no such bearers were ever stopped by police and threatened that, if they did not remove their placard, they would be arrested on a criminal charge. You were allowed to express your opinion then, and the world and his wife passed by, often with a pitying little smile at your eccentricity. All these cases I mention are recent, and all brought forth instant action by the police. No wonder there is a growing nervousness about speaking one's mind. Our laws are being interpreted differently for different religions, though I think they should be the same for everyone.
	I believe that the Government want to protect freedom of expression; unfortunately, local government too often does not. A fearsome number of local councils judge political correctness to be more important than free speech. In some cities, you are not allowed to celebrate Christmas if you call it that. The C-word must not be used in public displays or decorations. The charming custom of schools staging nativity plays with pint-sized angels, kings and shepherds, is banned. One wonders what might happen if British Christians went to live in a Muslim country. Would there be pressure there for Muhammad's name not to be mentioned? I don't think so.
	Schools have changed. Teachers and carers dare not give a small child who is crying a comforting cuddle, nor touch them at all—although often that is exactly what the little soul needs! Bang goes another freedom of expression. If a girl when under the age of consent becomes pregnant, a crime has been committed. Nothing much seems to be done to pursue that point, but the girl's teacher cannot tell the girl's parents, however loving and caring they may be, unless the child agrees. Yet in many cases, if the parents did know, they would rally round, support and help the girl, whatever she decided.
	All that has happened in the past few years. Christmas has always been named and celebrated and Christianity supported. It is after all our national, established Church, and there should be nothing wrong in supporting it. Good teachers have always provided sympathy and comfort for unhappy little children—and parents with the heavy responsibilities they bear, have the right to know of their children's problems. Freedom of speech has been sacrosanct until now.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, commented about the Salman Rushdie case that it is,
	"an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely".
	Exactly—within the law.
	The man who has taken up residence in Parliament Square, opposite the main gates of the House of Commons, has a perfect right to voice his opinions, whatever they may be. But what gives him the right permanently to deface one of the most prestigious pieces of public land in Britain with his filthy flags and tatty signs? That is not free speech—it is blatant vandalism. And I put the proposition that there really is a fundamental difference between allowing people to say what they think and allowing them to incite violence.
	It is offensive to Muslims that Muhammad should be portrayed with a bomb in his turban; that is perfectly understandable. It is just as offensive to Christians that Jesus Christ should be blasphemed and ridiculed, but I have never heard of Christians taking to the streets to demand that those who have blasphemed or ridiculed should be beheaded. If they had, I should certainly condemn them. Throughout history, famous people—clerics, kings, politicians and even deities—have been ridiculed in cartoons published in Britain; but no one has suggested banning the practice or stamping on press freedom until now. That worries me.
	Theatres can and do produce plays which are grossly offensive to Christians. There may be a few protests, but nothing happens—the play goes ahead. But if they plan a show which is offensive to Muslims, they are bullied and there are riots and threats and harassment until the play is withdrawn; and it always is. Sensible Muslims—and there are plenty of them—certainly do not advocate or support special treatment for Muslims; but to many observers that seems to be happening, and that, too, is very dangerous for society. Peaceable and law-abiding indigenous members of society are arrested for reciting names, for trying to get signatures on a petition, or merely for giving their opinions or carrying a placard naming Jesus, or even being rough-handled for heckling at a political meeting. There is instant action against those people.
	But for years the police knew that one Muslim was actively inciting extreme violence, training suicide bombers, hoarding weapons and dishing out false passports. Yet they did not arrest him, because the Crown Prosecution Service, or somebody or other—there is some dispute about who exactly said it—said no. So they did not. But thank God the police finally did arrest him—and thank God he now faces a prison sentence. It is not a very long one, it is true, and he could be out in about three years; but at least he is in prison now. But when one recalls that one of his students very nearly blew up a whole planeload of people with explosions hidden in his shoe, one cannot fail to note that that very late judgment by the police actually threatened many lives.
	If that man with the explosives in his shoe had not been discovered by very vigilant security men, a whole planeload of people could have died, because of that one man who was left for so long free to do that. Whether the late decision was caused by loosely worded laws, the CPS or MI5, the police or political correctness, I do not know, and I do not think that anybody else knows. Perhaps it was a bit of all five put together; I do not know. However, I hope and trust that the Minister can assure us, first, that free speech will not be further curtailed. I should make it clear that I do not seek to attack the Government here; I do not think that they are at all in favour of what has been happening. I merely hope that when we receive the Minister's reply, we shall learn that such further curtailment will not happen.
	Secondly, can the Minister assure us that whatever laws exist in this land, they must be applied equally and fairly to everyone? The British people are slow to anger and very tolerant, but they can be pushed too far. Any further diminution in equal justice and free speech could do that. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, for raising this important issue and giving us the chance to debate it. I would like to address it under two headings. First, what should be the limits of free speech, if any? Secondly, what limits are there on the protests about how others exercise their rights to free speech? Both those issues were reflected in the speech of the noble Baroness and are the subject of much newspaper speculation and discussion.
	We all know that this is a difficult issue. The recent discussion about the Danish cartoons has made us all realise that it is simply not straightforward. Meanwhile, I find the recent BNP court decision to be, at the very least, almost impossible to understand. However, free speech is not just about the right of the majority. It is an even more fundamental protection for minorities. We only have to look at other countries where there is no free speech to see how minorities are victimised and unable to exercise their right of expression. I would say to all minorities in Britain, "This important right protects you more than it does the majority in this country".
	Perhaps I should declare an interest as a former member of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, and for a time its chairman. We were, of course, not censoring television or radio; we dealt with complaints against their content if it breached the code. Some complaints were on the sort of issues raised by the noble Baroness in her speech. Post 9/11, the Broadcasting Standards Commission was asked to meet representatives of the Muslim community who were concerned about the way that their community was being portrayed on television and radio. We had two long afternoon meetings with broadcasters, regulators and those community representatives. The outcome was that we were able to assure the Muslim community that, in the main, the existing codes which determined practice by broadcasters and regulators provided it with a fair measure of protection, but that there was also the opportunity to move the codes forward—and the broadcasters agreed to do that.
	More recently, there have been many protests by Christians about "Jerry Springer—The Opera", but I can perhaps speak with rather more experience about "The Last Temptation of Christ", which provoked a similar set of complaints from churches. I remember that we at the Broadcasting Standards Commission received petitions from Churches and protests that the film should not be shown. We had no powers over that, but in the event we did not uphold the complaints that we received. My point is that, in talking to a number of people about television programmes and the harm from television, I spoke to a young student who was a devout Christian. I said to him, "Last night, Channel 4 showed 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. Did you see it?". "Yes", he said. "Are you aware of the numerous complaints by Churches against that particular film being shown?". That devout Christian man said, in words that I shall never forget, "I have no problem with that film. Jesus can look after himself".
	Despite his comments, I am sure that some Christians have been deeply offended by some of what appears on television. Yet, as a society, we also accept that many films about which there are complaints are serious works and that we have the right to see them. I would add that people in a free society cannot be protected from feeling irritated, insulted or even offended. That is part of freedom of speech; we may all be offended by certain things and must accept that freedom of speech operates in that way. Yet, as I shall say in a minute or two, violence or threats of violence are surely much worse than being offended or irritated by what one sees or reads. Everyone who believes in free speech should also exercise that right with care, for it includes respect for others and a sense of responsibility.
	This is an appropriate moment to turn to the Danish cartoons. Yes, the papers there had the right to publish them. Were they wise to do so? I think not, and I am relieved that British newspapers had the sense not to publish them. After the initial publication of the cartoons, there was no particularly good case for republishing them time and time again. The British media made a wise judgment.
	However, the noble Baroness referred to Salman Rushdie's book. The attempt to suppress that book was a much more serious attack on free speech than the cartoons in Denmark. More recently, there was the case of the Sikh play "Beshti" in Birmingham. An angry mob stopped that play being performed and I am as dismayed by that as I am by the fact that it has been forgotten. We have not bothered about it, and yet all we need is another angry mob to stop any other play being shown. That is a disgrace, because it has imposed a constraint on authors and playwrights.
	If free speech is exercised lawfully and there are some constraints such as incitement to racial hatred and other criminal matters, the question is how we protest about how to exercise that free speech if we are not happy. It is unacceptable to threaten violence and murder because one does not like something that has been published. I welcome the fact that the great majority of moderate Muslims protested about the violence at the demonstrations last Saturday.
	We must accept that the right to protest peacefully is an important function of our society. I agree that these issues are difficult, but surely we need courage, tempered by responsibility and respect for the views of others.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for initiating this debate on such a current issue. The past few weeks have not been happy for secular-minded people. They have resulted in loss of life far beyond our shores and have weakened international relations between the West and the Muslim world. They have also shown that a common European foreign policy has some way to go. I, for one, regret the lack of solidarity with Denmark and Norway by the EU, when all tenets of international law were breached in the ransacking of those countries' missions in Syria and Lebanon. The EU could and should have been more vigorous in its condemnation of those acts.
	My more immediate concern is with community relations between western Muslims, in particular, our situation here in Britain, and broader questions of freedom of speech. As the only Muslim speaking in this debate, I will not dwell on theological arguments about how offensive these cartoons are. That they are, is indisputable, and we find ourselves in a situation where large numbers of our fellow citizens feel deeply offended by the publication and republication of those cartoons. Newspapers are going out of their way to republish the cartoons and that is turning legitimate debate into gratuitous offence. It does not help anything other than to provide succour to "fundamentalists" on each side. Is that the agenda of those defending free speech? I would hope not.
	Turning to "fundamentalists" on the Muslim side—namely those protesting in London last weekend—many of us can understand that those demonstrating had high feelings. What we cannot understand or condone are the implicit and explicit incitements to terrorism and murder. I, and countless others like me, have just one thing to say to them—"Not in my name". What is also troubling about recent events is the role of certain clerics who appear to have said one thing for their western audiences, and said other far more radical things to Muslim audiences. I would urge religious leaders to be moderate and consistent. Violence and loss of life are not in the interests of any group on any side.
	It is also difficult to understand how the Metropolitan Police arrived at its decision to do nothing about the offensive placards. There are also allegations by some of the protestors, repeated on BBC's "Newsnight" on Monday, that the Met had "cleared" the placards as being acceptable. If that is so, it is very grave. I appreciate that the police are independent of ministerial control, but hope that in due course the Metropolitan Police Authority will seek the truth of those allegations. I also hope that, unlike the Abu Hamza case, the police do not hold back from arresting those advocating violence in such protests. It does no community good if the police interpret the same laws differently across different communities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has detailed.
	Moving to broader questions of freedom of expression, let me say from the outset that I am clearly in the camp that seeks to uphold that right, recognising that at times offence is indeed caused and deeply felt. Does this mean that we should be more careful in the exercising that right? My answer would be "yes," but I prefer self-censorship to state censorship, hence my opposition over the past years to the many provisions restricting free speech that this Government have tried to legislate for in recent Bills. I prefer a situation where we recognise that there is a thin dividing line between free speech on the one hand and tolerance on the other. I would, therefore, urge the Government to oppose calls from the newly formed Muslim Action Committee yesterday, which seeks to outlaw the publication of cartoons in the UK by strengthening the Press Complaints Commission's code. I would say to them that the Muslim cause is well served under current legislation. Enlarging the scope of the law may well result in casting the net so wide that the very first people caught by it are Muslims themselves.
	There are also wider questions for us western Muslims. If we choose to live in the West, should we not make an attempt to understand western history and the meaning of the Enlightenment? I found the tone of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, interesting, particularly in her portrayal of Christian tolerance and harmony. Might I go so far as to remind the noble Baroness, most respectfully, that the Enlightenment followed the Inquisition when, of course, many people were burned at the stake as heretics?
	Turning to ourselves, as Muslims, I would say that we should go beyond understanding, to empathise with the richness of western culture. While we can take just pride in our own, should we also not embrace western freedoms, such as those of dissent and protest in democracies? I would say to my co-religionists that we have some way to go in moderating our excessively emotional behaviour, and in understanding how to protest and voice dissent in a responsible manner. I do not refer only to western Muslims here, but to the loss of life across the Muslim world. Getting angry in the abstract should not lead to the violence we have witnessed recently. Islam stands above all this. We need to learn that respect for our belief cannot be forcibly extracted. By our behaviour it is earned, and by our behaviour diminishes us all. Such are the laws of unintended consequences.
	In concluding, it would be tempting to reflect on these last days and hope that it will all blow over. While I would deeply hope that that may be the case, I suspect that much bridge building needs to follow. One aspect of that bridge building is the Government's Commission on Integration, announced by the Prime Minister last August. This is needed now more than ever and I urge the Government to get it underway by setting it up and seeking support from across the political spectrum—and beyond—in that endeavour. We all need to work together to move beyond these troubled times.

Lord Monson: My Lords, barely 48 hours ago I arrived back from India where, incidentally, for part of the time my wife and I were guests of a Muslim family with whom we have been friends for almost 50 years; so not until yesterday did I realise that this debate was taking place today. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, not only on her speech but on her immaculate timing. The Motion speaks of the recent developments affecting freedom of speech. I shall confine my remarks, given the time constraints, to the spoken word.
	It is true that matters have grown much worse recently under this Government. However, it must be said that the rot started to set in over four decades ago. I was lucky enough to grow up in an era when traditional British freedom of speech was by and large a reality. The same applies to my contemporary, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is not in his place at the moment; although he may interpret matters differently—we shall soon know. Of course, that was offset by tighter restrictions on other forms of expression: the theatre was still under the absurd and anachronistic thumb of the Lord Chamberlain; films were more heavily censored than today, albeit largely in line with public opinion at that time; and books were sometimes censored, notably Lady Chatterley's Lover, although in practice it was not difficult to find ways and means of getting around the bans.
	Provided that they did not shout obscenities in public or encourage others to cause physical harm to persons or property, people could say pretty much what they liked in private homes, pubs, clubs, the workplace or on a soapbox. During my teens, my parents lived not far from Marble Arch, and I used to enjoy going to Speaker's Corner. One heard every sort of rant: communist, Trotskyite, Mosleyite and religious zealotry of every hue. There was plenty of heckling, both witty—the most effective kind—and angry, but no one tried to stop the other person saying his piece. People argued and argued fiercely with their opponents, but they did not try to gag them; and rightly the police stayed well away. Even during the understandable mass demonstrations over the Suez misadventure, neither demonstrators nor counter-demonstrators tried to silence the other.
	Then came the 1960s. By that, I do not mean the physical decade starting on 1 January 1960 but the cultural and sociological phenomenon that ran from mid-1962, I would say, until the end of 1974—although Philip Larkin famously put the start date six months later. Ostensibly, it was a time of glorious liberation, and in some respects that was true. However, unfortunately, nonconformity soon became the new conformity, as far as the younger generation was concerned. Opponents of the Zeitgeist were barely tolerated. Above all, political opponents were no longer to be engaged in intelligent argument but to be silenced altogether, in true Maoist style.
	It first became apparent during the demonstrations over the Cuban missile crisis and reached its peak during the Vietnam war. "Uncle" Ho Chi Min was virtually worshipped by most students and by what we now call the chattering classes. Of the well known commentators, only Bernard Levin and Kingsley Amis had the courage to stick up for the South Vietnamese anti-communists, many of whom were later to become the boat people. When the anti-communists booked Kensington town hall to put their case—calmly, to an invited audience—they were besieged by a mob of screaming fanatics and forced to flee.
	Next came the Californian eccentricity of political correctness, which, before long, spread throughout the English speaking world—including Australia, of all unlikely places—and which further constrained free speech. So far, the Government cannot be directly blamed for all this, except perhaps for enthusiastically endorsing excesses of political correctness. However, recently we have seen some extraordinary developments—for example, as has been mentioned, the law that severely restricts protests within one kilometre of Parliament, despite the fact that no corresponding restrictions apply to protests outside the White House in Washington, as I have observed. This law caught a woman who was doing nothing worse than reciting the names of the war dead.
	Next, the Prime Minister himself, no less, was investigated by the police for remarking, in private, that the Welsh were a pain in the backside. Actually, he used much stronger language that cannot be repeated in the House. The police were similarly diverted from their rightful tasks of chasing burglars and car thieves into investigating, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, moderate criticisms of homosexual practices made by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, the author Lynette Burrows and Dr Iqbal Sacranie , a prominent Muslim—even though the comments were entirely legal.
	One cannot help suspecting that senior police officers fear that their chances of appointment and promotion will be lessened unless they pursue new Labour's PC agenda with the utmost zeal, whether or not the law actually dictates it. That is an unsatisfactory, and even dangerous, state of affairs.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my first duty is to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, on obtaining an important and timely debate. As a noble Lord observed, she could hardly have thought that the debate would have taken off in the way that it has, given events over the past week or two, which are continuing to unfold. The noble Baroness caught some of the mood and flavour of that in her exposure of some of the contradictions, as she saw them, in the expression of opinions and the detail of "political correctness", as she described it.
	I congratulate all other noble Lords who have taken part in this good and vigorous debate. I have listened carefully to it and I intend to read it carefully. I have listened in particular to the previous two speeches, which along with all the others, will require close reading and in which points were well made.
	I was intrigued by some comments. The observations of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about a change in the moral climate were interesting, although clearly provocative to some. I found myself easily agreeing with my noble friend Lord Dubs when he rightly said that freedom of speech was a guarantor of the protection of minorities; that view was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, reminded us that we should revisit first principles. She was right to do that and, indeed, some speeches took us back to those principles.
	I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this Government had been irresponsible regarding freedom of speech issues and had been chipping away at it. However, I did agree when he said that the press had perhaps become more responsible over the past couple of decades. However, an interesting article by Roy Greenslade in the Daily Telegraph this week questioned the basis of that new responsibility, suggesting that trusting markets was a bigger explanation than most.
	I certainly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, when he said that there was an ongoing battle between fundamentalism and cosmopolitanism. I side with him in looking for the victor.
	I was amused on hearing the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It was the first time that I have heard someone claiming that there was a disadvantage to his life in being an old Etonian. The noble Lord should visit the kitchen Cabinet of Mr Cameron, who may put him right on that.
	I could barely disagree with my noble friend Lord Soley's correct assessment that while these are important issues now, they are issues that come and go. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, took us back to the days of the Suez conflict and reminded us how the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" court case had been variously interpreted at the time as an attack on freedom of speech and expression. The echoes regarding a consistent application of the law were a theme picked up neatly by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and came through in the debate.
	Freedom of speech is central to the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy and of a free society. I doubt whether anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree with that. This Government are committed to upholding the right of freedom of speech and they have done a great deal to protect that freedom since taking office, particularly through the Human Rights Act 1998, which ensured that the right of free speech, contained in Article 10, along with other rights, of the European Convention on Human Rights, is brought directly into effect in our law, and that the courts must interpret the law compatibly with those rights.
	We must all recognise that there are limitations on what can acceptably be said. Freedom of speech is not an absolute. The debate reflected that; the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Giddens and Lord Kingsland, made it very clear that that was very much how they saw the matter. There are, as there must be, consequences when people go beyond those limits. There have always been restrictions to the freedom of speech; the European Convention on Human Rights itself states:
	"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety; for the prevention of disorder or crime; for the protection of health or morals; for the protection of reputation or rights of others; for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".
	For example, if we use racist language, if we encourage child abuse, or if what we say is intended to incite hatred or provoke violence, we accept that there should be consequences, and that such things should legitimately be caught by the law.
	It is right that there should be thorough and lively debate whenever the boundaries of free speech are tested. We have heard a lot of such debate in recent months; today's debate is part of that. Before responding to some of the specific points raised, I would like to cover some issues more generally. First, I would like to say a few words about the cartoons, to which everybody has referred, that have caused so much controversy over the past week. As the Home Secretary said on Monday:
	"In Britain, the response to the publication of the Danish cartoons has, in general, been respectful and restrained".
	This is the best tradition of British tolerance and understanding and we welcome that. We and our EU partners stand in full solidarity with the Danish government in resisting the violence that has arisen. Nothing can justify the violence aimed at European embassies, or in Denmark. We understand the offence caused by the cartoons depicting the prophet, and regret that this has happened. Freedom of expression must be exercised with respect for the views of others, including their religious beliefs. Such attacks as we have seen on the citizens of Denmark and other European countries are completely unacceptable.
	For this reason, we must ensure that the law is properly formulated to deal with the kinds of situations that arise. We accept that there will be debate on each occasion when it is proposed that the law is changed, but we do not apologise for seeking change when it is required. By way of example, perhaps I could briefly turn to the Terrorism Bill. I do not wish to say too much about this, because I have little doubt that it will return to your Lordships' House. I do not believe that the Bill imposes undue restrictions on free speech. The Bill creates new offences of encouragement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications. These offences can only be committed if the person concerned intends by his actions to incite acts of terrorism, or is subjectively reckless in that regard. I am sure I do not need to rehearse all the arguments we have had on this matter, but that, plainly, is our view. Any restriction on what may be said or done is, on some level, regrettable. However, as we have heard today, free speech can never be absolute. No one has a right to express publicly sentiments designed to provoke others to commit terrorist atrocities.
	While we are in this field, it is only right that I say something, too, about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The Government believe that, as originally drafted, the Bill did not impact upon anyone's ability to joke, discuss, debate or to speak in any number of ways about religion or belief. The original Bill struck the right balance between catching those who seek to stir up hatred and the right to criticise and ridicule religion. However—and the Government must accept that this was the case—there was widespread support in the other place for the amendments voted in by this House. The Bill, as passed by Parliament on 31 January, therefore now contains a comprehensive freedom of speech clause, specifically stating that matters such as discussion, debate, criticism, expression of antipathy, abuse, insult, ridicule or attempt to convert people from one faith—or lack of faith—to another faith will not be covered by the Bill's provisions.
	We believe that this gives the reassurance many have sought. An artistic performance that dealt with an issue of religion or belief in a controversial way could therefore proceed in the knowledge that it would not be unlawful. For example, much has been made of the production of "Jerry Springer—The Opera". As I said, the Government uphold freedom of expression, provided that it does not stir up hatred or violence. Theatres make their own decisions on which productions to mount. The BBC took the decision to show "Jerry Springer—The Opera" independently of government. Although it is clear that its production and screening has caused offence, there is no evidence that it has stirred up hatred against any religious group and it would not be caught by the proposed incitement to religious hatred offence. It would not have been caught by the Bill in our preferred form.
	Similarly, although it was already an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs under the current incitement to racial hatred offences, whether because of their race or religion, the police decided that there were no grounds for action against the play "Behzti", which some Sikhs felt targeted their community. That was right, although the police faced a difficult task in policing the demonstrations against it, and in the end the theatre withdrew the play.
	Much has also been made in the press recently of examples of how religious freedoms are under threat. In particular, there is a view that the Christian faith is under attack, that councils will no longer support Christmas, and that Christian preaching and Christian symbols are frowned upon. I make it clear that the Government do not seek to prevent local authorities or, for that matter, anyone else being involved in carol services or any other religious celebrations or activities where they feel that it is right to be involved. What is right is that public authorities treat people of all faiths and none fairly.
	Part 2 of the Equality Bill, which outlaws religious discrimination by public authorities, in the provision of goods, facilities and services and in education, and which was recently before your Lordships' House, does not make it unlawful for public bodies to celebrate Christmas, and it will not require the removal of Bibles from hospitals or the banning of Christian symbols. It is not in anyone's interests for councils to ban such events, and I do not believe that people from minority faiths want to see such things stopped.
	However, it is also crucial that the Government work together with all faith communities to improve their capacity to fight extremism and distortion of their faiths and so protect our young people from recruitment to violence. We are determined to work in partnership with the Muslim community to root out extremism and tackle the causes of radicalisation among a minority of our young people. To that end, we are meeting individuals and organisations from across the Muslim communities to discuss where the Government can support them in taking forward recommendations from the Preventing Extremism Together report, as well as other initiatives.
	The issue of when free speech should be curtailed in the interests of the protection of individuals or society is clearly highly sensitive. The Government are committed to maintaining free speech in this country and the proud tradition of tolerance that we have inherited. To do that, we need to adapt to the new challenges that arise, to work out the boundaries that have to be applied, and to work with all our communities to ensure that both tolerance and free speech are as real for our children as they have been for us. To that end, such matters will always, I hope, be the subject of profound and thorough debate in this place whenever they arise, as they have today.
	Important points were raised in the debate, and I shall try to run through them as I come to a close. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, rightly asked why Abu Hamza was not prosecuted earlier—a question very much in the public eye. As the Crown Prosecution Service and the police made clear in a recent public statement, despite information being submitted to the CPS on two occasions prior to 2003, at that stage it was felt by those authorities that there was insufficient evidence to charge Mr Hamza with any offence. I draw the noble Baroness's attention to an important letter in today's Daily Telegraph on that point from Ken McDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions. It sets out from a prosecutory perception, and the CPS's view, how the prosecutions of Mr Hamza and Mr Griffin took the time that they did. He states clearly in the letter that there was evidence of a parity of approach, and we have to take that at face value.
	The noble Baroness also referred to the Maya Evans arrest and made reference, as did others, to Parliament Square. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the question about the use of the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Provisions from that legislation have been enforced since 1 August last year. The majority of organisers have applied for authorisation to demonstrate, and I am advised that some 66 demonstrations have taken place with an authorisation. However, some groups have tested the legislation, perhaps provocatively, and there have been 23 arrests for taking part in unauthorised demonstrations. In all those cases, the organisers had not properly applied to the Metropolitan Police for an authorisation.
	It is a long-standing tradition in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, rightly argued that people are free to gather together and demonstrate their views, provided that they do so within the law. Equally, access to Parliament must be maintained, and those living and working in and around the building should be able to do so in safety and free from harassment. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, there has to be a balance between the rights of those working around Parliament and the rights of protesters. The noble Lord was right to say that difficult and fine judgments have to be made.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked a question, on which she had given advance notice, about the commission on faiths. I am conscious that the noble Baroness wants that to be set up soon, and I share that sense of urgency. Consultation with faith leaders and what are described as wider stakeholders working towards the development of the commission, were sent out in the autumn. The Home Secretary is now considering what the consultation means and how it will affect the scope and work of the commission. We are all hopeful that those considerations will be completed so that progress can be made. It is an important body and, as the noble Baroness argued, it is probably more important now than when it was first considered.
	The noble Baroness also drew attention to what has been described as the police under-reaction to the recent protests, as did the noble Lord, Lord Soley. The Metropolitan Police have set up a post-event investigation to review evidence gathered by the specialist officers who attended the demonstration last weekend, which includes video and sound recording, CCTV and officers' written records. I am advised that the police will pass evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service to make a proper judgment on whether an offence has been committed. That has to be right. It is the professional body, which is independent of politics and the Executive. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, nodding because he made the point that it is for the CPS to make the decision on whether it is proportionate and right to proceed.
	This has been a useful debate. I have certainly learnt something from it. The contributions have been powerful and the debate needs to continue. We in government believe in freedom of speech and in people's right to protest. It is fair and proportionate that there should be a measured response. Of course we need to be vigilant at all times. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness. She has done a first-rate job in bringing the debate forward, and I hope that it is not the last time that we have the opportunity to reflect and consider the important issues that she has raised in her perspicacious way and with such thoroughness and great articulation. I congratulate all the others who have added to the sense that it is a debate for now and also one for the future.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful for the timely and wise advice I received from the government Front Bench. In commenting gently on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I suggest that it is as serious to curtail free speech on the basis of political correctness as it is to curtail it on any other basis.
	On the remarks of my noble friend Lord Soley, my objections to giving Sinn Fein air time was that it was killing not only British soldiers at the time, but innocent British citizens, and urging others to join them in murdering and wounding. I made it clear that that kind of action could not be under the heading of free speech.
	I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have been kind enough to take part in this debate, and to give such thought and care to what they have said this afternoon. It is worth thinking about the point that, perhaps 200 years from now, people in this House may quote, from the everlasting Hansard of 9 February 2006, some of the comments on free speech made here. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, this is an important, if somewhat technical, matter that is worthy of consideration. The Minister has made a good case for the continuation of the levy, setting it in the context of the industry's importance. As he said, the Industrial Training Act 1982 established industrial training bodies to ensure that the quantity and quality of training adequately met the needs of the industries for which they were established. The 1982 Act also contained provision for the levy on employers to finance ITB activities and share the cost of training more evenly between companies in the industry.
	There are two ITBs covering the construction and drilling industries, as we can see from the orders before us, and we are taking those matters together. Both boards provide a wide range of services and training initiatives, including setting occupational standards, providing vocational qualifications, delivering apprenticeships and paying direct grants to employers who carry out training to approved standards.
	These matters are significant because of the context in which we are considering them. Your Lordships will be familiar with the work of Kate Barker and her review of housing supply. Regardless of what one may think about some aspects of the report, one problem that Kate Barker identified, and on which we all agree, is the paucity of skills in the construction industry. That will act as a bar to the delivery of the targets that her report established as necessary. Indeed, the Government, in their own policy, have endorsed those targets. Undoubtedly, we will be unable to build on the scale proposed without significant improvement in the quantity and quality of skills available to the construction industry. I think it important to note at this juncture that, having followed the debate on these orders in another place, while we support them, we do not want to be diverted into the intricacies of house building policies. The Minister will know that I am referring to the failed attempts by the honourable Member for Normanton, Edward Balls MP—I think he prefers to be called "Ed"—to ensnare my honourable friend John Hayes.
	However, it is worth saying a word about the Barker review. Mrs Barker warned:
	"The track record of the industry, in areas such as consumer satisfaction, skills, innovation and local acceptance, is not sufficiently strong to inspire confidence in policy makers that it can deliver".
	That is worrying indeed. In particular, Mrs Barker warned:
	"The industry needs to address its weak record of innovation and remove barriers to the take-up of modern methods of construction and off-site manufacturing.
	"Investment in skills needs to increase to produce higher levels of output in the future and to bring the take-up of apprenticeships towards the levels of leading international comparators. In the short-term, Government should consider increasing support for skills in the construction sector alongside any increases in the industry-funded training levy".
	She refers specifically to the matter before us.
	A report by the adult learning inspectorate, published in May last year, found that the construction industry's own research showed an acute shortage of skilled craftspeople. There are 300,000 fewer skilled craftspeople than the industry needs in terms of contracts already planned. During the 1970s, 100,000 people were being trained each year across a range of construction skills, but by 2004, that figure had declined to fewer than 40,000.
	The standard of training currently offered can only make the situation worse. Some 40 per cent of those being trained in construction industry skills were found by the adult learning inspectorate to be trained inadequately, and only 34 per cent of trainees complete their apprenticeships. Those are worrying figures, and they are worrying for all of us, regardless of party.
	While we are taking the orders together, I draw particular attention to the Construction Industry Training Board—the subject of the first of the orders. It is the largest provider of training in the building and crafts industries. It has 10,000 learners, but only 25 per cent of those will complete their qualifications. Nick Perry, director of inspection at the Adult Learning Inspectorate, commented that the construction industry must face up,
	"to the critical problems endemic in its training methods today",
	if the industry is to develop the new houses that the Government have planned for. Quite apart from the other buildings that emanate from such efforts to a standard that our nation deserves, urgent action is needed to improve the provision of training in the construction industry.
	The Minister said that there is support for the continuation of the levy at an appropriate level. That is vital. The level must be appropriate to deliver the sort of return that is needed. The Minister mentioned that support, and perhaps it is worth while amplifying his point by drawing your Lordships' attention to some figures: 72 per cent of employers support the continuation of the CITB levy-grant system; and 73 per cent believe that the amount of training in the industry would worsen in the absence of CITB construction skills.
	I draw two worries to the Minister's attention, and I hope that he will respond.
	First, in the past six years, the proportion of levy-paying employers who are members of the main employer federations has dropped from 58 per cent to just over 50 per cent. That reflects a decline in the percentage of construction employers who become federation members, rather than any diminution in support for the levy system in the industry. I mentioned the high level of support, but as fewer people become members of the federation, there is a worry that the levy system will cease to have the necessary depth of support to facilitate the outcomes that we all want.
	Secondly, we on these Benches have real concerns about the apprenticeship framework. The major cause of the current low level of apprenticeship framework completions in the construction industry is the failure of further education colleges to find work experience opportunities for trainees who are enrolled on full-time courses. This is one of the examples—there are others—of a gap between what we do in FE and what we do in industry. We need a greater synergy between the activities of further education colleges and the demands of a range of industries, including the construction industry. Perhaps that should be the substance of a debate for another day, but for now, we support the orders.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive contributions to this short debate on the training boards, which, it is recognised, play an important role in our economy. They could do better—all those who contribute to skills could do better, because we are all aware of the fact that it is an area of British education and training where we need to improve performance year on year. The identification of the issue goes back over decades, but the constructive action to deal with the skills shortages takes time before it makes an impact.
	I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, when she indicated that it would be remiss of us to stray to wider issues of house-building strategies and demand for housing, which was the fault into which the Committee drifted in the Commons. Members of the Commons are rather more prone than your Lordships to score points off each other from time to time. What was an exercise in innocent fun by my honourable friend the Member for Normanton enlightened the Committee, but far be it from us to get into a major debate about housing policy at this place and time; except to say, as the noble Baroness accurately identified, that proposals for increasing the number of houses to be built make demands on the industry, which is short of skilled persons at present.
	I share the noble Baroness's worry about one aspect, which is that the decline of those firms that join the federation could lead us into great difficulty. If the number falls below the critical mass there is no way that we can operate, as we do within the framework of the law, the existing provisions with regard to levies. She is right about that matter but I am not sure if I detected a constructive answer on how it should be tackled. People join federations because they see benefits from the contributions the federation makes to the general work that they do, so we must look at ways in which the federations improve their standing. They have a long history and have been respected in the past, but she is right that an increasing number of companies are not joining, which is an anxiety.
	Both noble Lords who spoke emphasised the problems with regard to FE colleges and finding places. That is a genuine problem. We have greatly expanded further education opportunities, more young people are staying on in education than ever before and our colleges are expanding, but to do their job as effectively in education and training in key skill areas they need opportunities for young people to obtain direct work experience. That is always a challenge. I recall over all the expansion of vocational courses in this country, whether at further education or higher education level, that the pressure on succeeding in getting good training opportunities outside the education institutions has always been acute. I am confident that the Further Education Minister will respond to the challenge because courses will not succeed in training students otherwise, but it means a growing awareness in wider society that training young people is the seed-corn of the skills of the future and the backbone of the economy for the future.
	It is good to see that that is recognised on both sides of the House, as it was when the order was debated in the Commons, because we need to make the wider society aware of the necessity of contributions on all sides to improving skill levels and the opportunities for enhancing skills.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked whether the Olympic Games could contribute through public sector funding, but the Olympic Games funding is not directly under any government departmental control.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, I am happy to follow these two contributions. NESTA is one of the Government's unsung successes. It has been able to identify areas where no other conventional means of support for business start-up have been available. It has often been able to support activities which otherwise would have fallen between the cracks of various forms of government support. The examples given to us include the work of Dr Kevin Fong, who was doing work in anaesthetics at University College London where the multi-disciplinary character of the work he was engaged in did not attract funding from any of the normal research sources. Getting the support of NESTA has enabled him to continue with his research work. This is investing in what could be called exceptional UK talent.
	Equally, it is fair to say that a number of the creative entrepreneurs coming out of our arts colleges and similar places would become distinguished crafts people if they were able to get the advice or the business start-up assistance to go on. Mark Bickers, a glassmaker who went on the Creative Pioneer course is now operating on a self-sustaining basis, selling to places such as Liberty.
	We sometimes think that business support is for very large operations or ones which of themselves will create a great number of jobs. But one of the great and telling lessons of the past couple of decades has been the significance of small business and the way in which small businesses take on two or maybe three employees and account for a sizeable amount of the increase in our employment rates.
	However, it is also fair to say that, where the money has gone in, in a number of instances it has been able to attract support from angels and venture capitalists on a ratio of £1 which would attract £5 from anywhere else. I imagine that the success of that is one of the driving forces behind the Government's review because it was set up with money from the Lottery—a source not available for any other purpose in this way—and it could be reaching the point of self-sustaining growth as an endowment. It is to that that we should look to the future. It is exciting that we have made this fairly modest contribution—because in terms of industrial support, £15 million per annum is not a massive sum. But Jonathan Kestenbaum, Chris Powell, the chair and their colleagues will be able to look forward to five years of sustained activity in which they will be able to establish the endowment as a means of giving young people—particularly young people involved in the creative areas, the grey areas of industrial and business activity—assistance and support. Just affording them the mentoring and network facilities that the endowment gives will help people who are on their own. They are often bewildered by the range of business opportunities that are supposed to be there and they never quite know how to take advantage of them, but they will be able to do so because of this endowment. It is a credit to the ingenuity of the first Labour government and it will be a credit to successive Labour governments because the success of our economy will come in large measure through the kind of work that the beneficiaries of the endowment have been able to take forward. A dynamic economy requires creative industry and creative industry hitherto has not been able to attract the kind of support that it is now getting, not only through the endowment but through the credibility which the endowment provides. It enables these individuals to go elsewhere and get the additional support that they need to make their businesses grow. I welcome the Government's courage in providing £75 million over the next five years and I welcome this order tonight.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we too have no problem with this order. NESTA has been a great success. The Minister talked about it being an exciting development. It is not only exciting; it is very creative. He also said that not everything had been a success, but in the world of venture capital, you are lucky if one in 20 projects is a success. NESTA has hit rather more than one in 20, so it has a very good record. As the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, mentioned, for every £1 that has been invested in NESTA, a further £5 has been leveraged for further financing.
	One of the current enterprises in which NESTA is involved is what they call their future lab, which is developing new learning software. The DfES has put in £3 million, and Microsoft and Disney are also putting in similar sums of money. A spin-out company is emerging from NESTA this coming April. All of the creativity, the dynamism and the innovation are to be welcomed and, as I said, on these Benches we have no problem in endorsing this order.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for that whole-hearted support—more than I had dared anticipate—particularly from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who rightly upbraided me by asking why we need a review when he is documenting success. He has made me think twice about that concept, too. We are looking upon NESTA moving to a move substantial and mature role in terms of its finances. I think the noble Viscount will recognise that the first few years had their difficulties with investment and support, and we are now seeing NESTA grow into a more substantial role. That is the necessity for the review. I give the noble Viscount the assurance that it is not broke, and we are not going to go about fixing it in crucial areas. I was grateful for his support.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord O'Neill. It is almost a NESTA-type innovation to have a Back-Bencher contribute to our orders, such is the restricted dialogue that goes on between the Front Benches, with limited Back Bench contribution. I was grateful to him for contributing, particularly for his illustration of exceptional UK talent being nurtured by NESTA, and for emphasising the fact that there is some good value in the investment returns from the work which NESTA has done.
	I was also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who expressed her enthusiasm for the work of the organisation. It is the single largest provider of early seed funding in this country, willing to invest at a stage where it is notoriously difficult to get others to do so. It fills a crucial gap, and also explores what can happen when you merge the boundaries between science, technology and the arts. Having an endowment as a model of investment is essential to achieving its aims. My real answer to the noble Viscount is that we move from that degree of necessary support from the lottery into a situation where we hope the endowment will flourish sufficiently to guarantee the necessary resources. NESTA's influence is important in these terms.
	I am aware of a number of other criticisms which noble Lords were too kind to voice this evening. One is entirely valid, and I would have accepted it from any source. NESTA is not too good at blowing its own trumpet. It could do better with its own publicity, and that is something which we hope to impress upon it for the future. Success breeds success, but only if people are aware of that fact.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in moving this order I shall speak also to the Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2006. I remind noble Lords that the Pension Protection Fund, or PPF, was created under the Pensions Act 2004 and began operating on 6 April 2005. The PPF was established to pay compensation to members of eligible defined-benefit pension schemes when there is a qualifying insolvency event in relation to the employer and where there are insufficient assets in the pension scheme to cover PPF levels of compensation.
	Noble Lords will be aware that, when an employer has an insolvency event, an assessment period is triggered during which time the scheme's assets and liabilities are valued to determine whether the PPF should assume responsibility for the pension scheme. The assessment period must last at least 12 months meaning that the earliest date from which the PPF can pay compensation is 12 months from 6 April 2005. Noble Lords are all aware of the importance of the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme—or FAS, as I will refer to it during the course of this debate.
	I turn to the first order before us today. The Pensions Act 2004 (PPF Payments and FAS Payments) (Consequential Provisions) Order will insert Pension Protection Fund payments, together with a definition of those payments, into existing regulation-making powers within a variety of Acts to enable income-related and contributory benefits to take into account the receipt of Pension Protection Fund payments by individuals when calculating the amount of benefit due in relation to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, dependency increases in respect of incapacity benefit, maternity allowance, state pensions, carer's allowance and severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefit and state pension credit. In addition, financial assistance scheme—FAS—payments are inserted into the Jobseekers Act 1995 so that they may be treated as income for the purposes of contributions-based jobseeker's allowance. The relevant powers are contained within section 319(2)(a) of the Pensions Act 2004.
	When a member's occupational pension is replaced by PPF or FAS payments, those payments will not impact on certain income-related and contributory benefits unless current legislation is amended. Amendments to other benefit regulations are being taken forward separately by negative amending regulations as certain existing Acts already provide sufficient powers to make the necessary amendments without the requirement to amend primary legislation powers. These include housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, and income-based jobseeker's allowance.
	The financial assistance scheme was created to offer help to a number of people who have lost out on their defined-benefit pension scheme because their pension scheme was underfunded when it was wound up and their employer has been unable to make up the deficit. FAS became operational on 1 September 2005, and the first payments by FAS were made in December 2005. Because most FAS payments will not be made until the scheme members reach age 65, only certain social security benefits need to be amended to take account of FAS payments. This order will amend the primary legislation for contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, by inserting a definition of FAS payments into regulation-making powers and by adding a reference to FAS payments in the list of payments in respect of where deductions are to be made within the contribution element of jobseeker's allowance.
	Noble Lords may be aware that regulations relating to FAS and state pension credit came into force on 18 December 2005 to take account of FAS payments that came into force in December 2005. The order ensures that individuals in receipt of benefits and PPF or FAS payments are no better off than individuals in receipt of benefits and occupational pensions.
	I shall now move on to the second instrument before us, the PPF (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2006. This order follows the requirement in paragraph 27 of Schedule 7 of the Pensions Act 2004 to increase the amount of the compensation cap from 1 April 2006 in line with the increase in average earnings in the previous tax year. A compensation cap is applied to scheme members who are below the scheme's normal pension age at the start of the assessment period. These members are then eligible for a 90 per cent level of compensation when they retire.
	The amount of the current compensation cap was set from 6 April 2005 using data for average earnings and income available up to April 2004. The cap was set at £27,777.78 and currently provides a maximum amount of compensation, once the 90 per cent rule is applied, of £25,000 at age 65. Total average earnings, as published by the Office for National Statistics, increased by 4.2 per cent for the 2004–05 financial year. Applying this 4.2 per cent increase to the current cap provides an increased cap of £28,944.45, which provides a maximum amount of compensation, once the 90 per cent rule is applied, of £26,050.01 at age 65. That level of compensation is only appropriate to those members who became entitled to its 90 per cent level on or after 1 April 2006. The order therefore ensures that the compensation gap is uprated in line with the increase in average earnings.
	The two orders before us, which I am content are compatible with the human rights convention, ensure that compensation payments made to individuals out of the PPF are treated fairly and consistently with occupational pensions and earnings.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite followed the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to "boring", but in my case I certainly do not regard boring as a pejorative term. Indeed, the Government could do with being a lot more boring and a lot less frenetic in their activities, chopping and changing in all sorts of areas.
	Moving on to the orders—I intend to take every opportunity that I can to keep speaking up in Parliament for the 85,000 members of collapsed pension schemes who have been shamefully let down by this Government with their pitiful £20 million a year financial assistance scheme. The FAS is a cruel deception.
	Is the Minister aware that even the National Association of Pension Funds last week said:
	"The government's FAS is a half-hearted, inadequate patch-up job. There's a problem getting confidence back into pensions, and the impact of leaving 60,000 people with next to nothing is considerable".
	It added that the Government's commitment of £20 million a year was "vastly inadequate", and a
	"fudge to cheaply buy off Labour backbenchers".
	The National Association of Pension Funds is the leading independent body in this country.
	How many people have now received payments from the FAS? The excellent Pensions Week, as part of its Campaign for Pensions Justice, reported on 23 January that at that stage only 13 people had actually received payments. What is the latest total? This Government loves targets. So how many people do they expect will have received payments from the financial assistance scheme by the end of June this year and how many more by the end of the year?
	We have no objection to the details of this order or to the PPF compensation cap uprating.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to this short discussion. The PPF has been heavily debated in both Houses from the passage of the Pensions Act 2004 until more recently in July 2005, when we debated regulations on ombudsman provisions and fraud compensation requirements before they came into force.
	I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in supporting the aims of the PPF, to provide support to members who would otherwise lose out if the employer became insolvent and there were insufficient funds in the pension scheme. I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, on this matter.
	First, I thank noble Lords for welcoming the two orders. The order does not seek to take PPF compensation into account for payments of maternity allowance or state pensions themselves, but refers to adult dependency increase in relation to these benefits. We consider these amendments are necessary, as PPF compensation can be accessed from the age of 50. While we accept that the current number affected is not large, it is important to ensure consistency of treatment of PPF recipients, with the treatment of people in cases where payments of an occupational pension are made. In addition, we believe that the number of PPF compensation recipients will increase.
	Since the national insurance scheme started in 1948, the availability of an increase of benefit in respect of a spouse has been subject to an earnings rule. The purpose of that is to provide a simple test of the extent to which the spouse is financially dependent on the benefit customer. Earnings include pensions paid by employers and from personal pensions, and will include PPF payments. It is conceivable that a claim can be made for an adult dependency increase in maternity allowance for a spouse who receives PPF payments, given that compensation can be payable from the age of 50. Dependency increases for state pensions cease to be payable when the spouse's earnings exceed a certain limit. The limits are £56.20 per week for 2005–06 if a married couple live together and £49.15 per week when a married couple live apart.
	Incapacity benefit takes 50 per cent of occupational pension above £85 per week into account. Incapacity benefit will apply the same rules to PPF payments. However, if PPF payments are payable to a survivor, the entire payment, as with occupational pension, is disregarded. Similarly, state pension credit takes occupational pension income fully into account and will mirror that approach for PPF payments, having already done so for FAS payments.
	If a member has only two years' service when the PPF assume responsibility for their scheme, their PPF payment may be quite small. Although a member has the option to swap this payment for a lump sum, they may wish to receive compensation as a regular income. The member may also be entitled to state pension credit; this order will enable their PPF payment to be treated in the same way as the occupational pension income would have been treated.
	A question was asked by the noble Lord about the pension compensation cap order. This relates to the Pension Protection Fund. FAS applies to these schemes which begin winding up between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005. PPF applies to those schemes whose sponsoring employers have an insolvency event on or after 6 April 2005. This order increases the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap, set last year in line with average earnings, in accordance with the requirements of the Pensions Act 2004. We believe that the compensation cap will both provide the necessary cost control and encourage members below normal pension age to maintain a vested interest in ensuring that their scheme remains solvent and out of PPF.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said that when he last heard, FAS payments were being made to 13 people; he may be pleased to hear that we are currently making FAS payments to 15 people. We can only make payments to members of schemes who have provided us with the data we need to assess eligibility and calculate payments; to date, only two schemes have provided suitable data. We are confident that the number of payments will increase in February. We continue to work with schemes to get the information we need to make more payments. As usable data comes in, I expect the number of payments to rise significantly. It is vital that schemes supply data on their members without delay.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether the PPF would continue to be paid when the member works in another job; the answer is yes. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked whether the provision £400 million is enough. The Government have always said that the FAS will not give everyone all of what they want. The primary objective is to provide significant help to those who have lost the most and need help most urgently. As with all our spending plans, funding for the FAS will need to be reviewed in the next spending review, along with other spending priorities. These orders provide for the equal treatment of compensation payments in relation to state benefits, and ensure that the reduced level of compensation is maintained, in line with increases in average earnings. Again, I commend these orders to the House.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Pensions Act 2004 introduced powers to enable regulations to be made setting out a statutory requirement on employers to consult affected scheme members when a change is proposed to their scheme. It is important that employers consult on prospective changes to these pension schemes in order to involve scheme members in the future of the scheme. That will ensure that the affected scheme members fully understand the changes and, in particular, the likely impact on their future pension. We have worked closely with the CBI and TUC on these provisions and we consulted publicly on the detailed provisions over the summer of 2005.
	The regulations in this statutory instrument set out the detailed consultation requirements and correct a typographical error in the Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations 2005. These regulations will require larger employers to consult on specified proposed changes to their pension schemes. The regulations introduce a similar requirement for employer consultation on proposed pension scheme changes to those in the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 for other workplace organisational issues. Those regulations came into force for organisations with 150 or more employees from April 2005.
	The consultation by employers regulations will be phased in so that from April 2006 only employers with more than 150 staff will, unless exempted, be required to consult their employees on pension changes. From April 2007, employers with more than 100 employees will have to consult and, from April 2008, the requirement will be introduced for employers with more than 50 employees. As I said, we will amend these figures to ensure consistency with the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004.
	The regulations will not apply to any proposal that the members were advised of before the regulations come into force on 6 April or to employers in respect of certain pension schemes. The regulations require an employer to consult when a proposal is made to make a significant change to either an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme where the employer contributes under a direct payment arrangement.
	The employer must consult the affected members of the pension scheme or their representatives before a decision on whether to make such a change is taken. "Affected members" are defined as active members and prospective members of the scheme. A prospective member is an employee who will become eligible to become a member of the scheme.
	The regulations list the significant changes that the employer will be required to consult on. Such changes to an occupational pension scheme will include the following: closing the scheme to new members; stopping future accrual of benefits, or rights, in the scheme; removing the employer's contributions; and, finally, introducing member contributions.
	In addition, the employer is required to consult on certain proposed changes that affect only occupational pension schemes that are not money purchase schemes—that is, defined benefit schemes. These are changes affect the basis of the scheme. They include, for example, changing the scheme, in full or in part, to a money purchase scheme or changing the method for the accrual of benefits, or rights, in the scheme—for example, from final salary to career average. For personal pension schemes, the employer will be required to consult when he proposes to stop or reduce his contribution to the scheme or increase the members' contributions.
	The regulations also specify whom the employer must consult and they specify that he must ensure as far as reasonably practicable that the consultation covers all affected members. The regulations allow the employer, to a certain extent, to choose from a variety of prescribed consultation arrangements how he will achieve that. An employer who is required to consult about a proposed change to a pension scheme and who has already agreed consultation arrangements with his employees, which are of the type listed in the regulations, must consult using one or more of those arrangements. The regulations allow him to choose from recognised trade union representatives, elected or appointed information and consultation representatives, any other pre-existing agreement, or pension representatives elected under these regulations.
	The employer may consult directly with affected members if he has a pre-existing or negotiated agreement with his employees permitting this. The regulations also set out other requirements for the consultation. They prescribe that the consultation must take at least 60 days, that the responses to the consultation must be considered before deciding whether to make the change to the scheme, and that the employer and the person consulted work together in a spirit of co-operation.
	The Pensions Regulator is permitted by the regulations to waive or relax the consultation requirements if it is in the interest of scheme members to do so. In addition, the people consulted under the regulations and other employees will receive employment rights protection against unfair dismissal or other detriment as a result of their actions under the regulations. This is achieved through the schedule to the regulations, which in part amend the Employments Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
	I wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that these regulations amend a typographical error that was brought to this House's attention on 22 November last year. The typographical error occurs in what is now Regulation 5(3) of the Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations 2005, which is now corrected, as amended by the Financial Assistance Scheme (Modifications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005 which came into force on 24 November 2005.
	We said at the time that we would correct this error at the earliest opportunity. We have done so and the correction is contained in the regulations that we are debating today. The correction restores the original intention of allowing the scheme manager to extend the one-month time limit for scheme members to ask for an internal review to 12 months where necessary.
	I move on to the Information and Consultation of Employees (Amendment) Regulations 2006. This is consequential to the main set of regulations that I have just discussed. As many of you will be aware, the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004—commonly known as the ICE regulations—came into force in April 2005 for organisations with 150 or more employees. Introduced as part of a landmark framework agreement between the CBI and the TUC, they established important rights for employees to be consulted on an ongoing basis about matters which affect them.
	The ICE regulations are designed to be flexible. They allow employers and employees to agree consultation arrangements, tailored to suit their needs. Consultation arrangements may cover a wide range of strategic issues and could potentially include listed changes to pension schemes. There is, therefore, some potential for an overlap between the ICE regulations and our proposed new requirement to consult on changes to pension schemes. During the Department for Work and Pension' s public consultation in June, a number of consultees, including the CBI expressed concern that employers might be required to consult about listed pension changes under both regulations.
	We understand their concerns. It is not right that an employer may find that he is expected to consult on listed pensions changes under both regimes, or could be exposed to double jeopardy. These regulations deal with this issue by amending the ICE regulations. The amendments ensure that the employer is required to consult under our pension regulations only, not under the ICE regulations, provided that he notifies the relevant employees or their representatives of his intentions in advance.
	Our approach has a precedent. The ICE regulations contain a number of similar provisions, to ensure that there is no overlap between them and other long-standing requirements on employers to consult about collective redundancies and business transfers. This SI simplifies the law and prevents a potential overlap between two sets of obligations on employers. The two instruments ensure that employers will consult their employees or their representatives so that pension scheme members are fully aware of the implications of a proposed change to their pension and that there is meaningful discussion with their employer about the proposal. They also provide that an employer will have to consult under the pension provisions only, and not under the ICE regulations as well. Again, I am satisfied that these instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I commend them to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contribution. Our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on spotting the slight difference between these two sets of regulations. An example would have been that, as he said, from April 2008, under these regulations an employer with exactly 50 employees would not have to consult on pension changes, whereas under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, an employer with 50 would. The difference is one employee.
	We accept that this is a very unsatisfactory situation, and will take action to remedy it at the earliest opportunity. It is our intention to make the necessary amendment in time for it to come into force at the same time as these regulations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about the reason for exempting small employers. As I explained in my speech, the exemption for small employers will be phased in over the next two years so that, from April 2008, only employers with fewer that 50 employees will be exempt from the requirement to consult about pension changes. This is consistent with the wider consultation arrangements under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations. We would encourage all employers, irrespective of size, to consult their employees as a matter of good practice, but it would not be proportionate to impose an additional burden on small businesses.
	The noble Lord also suggested that an employer should consult the pension representative and at least one other set of representatives. Our intention is to promote meaningful consultation in ways best suited to individual companies. We do not wish to disturb existing consultation arrangements that are working, nor do we want to prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach.
	The regulations provide that the employer who is required to consult must make arrangements to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable, he consults with all the affected members of the pension scheme. The employer may choose from the consultation arrangements that he has already agreed with his employees or elected pension representatives in deciding how he achieves this. Provided that the employer makes arrangements to consult with all the affected members or their representatives, we believe this to be sufficient. Requiring employers to consult pension representatives and other representatives could be cumbersome and inefficient, as well as placing an additional, unnecessary burden on employers.
	The noble Lord asked me to explain the arrangements for policing these regulations. The Pensions Regulator will oversee compliance with the regulations. If the consultation requirement is breached, affected employees may complain to the regulator, who will consider action against the employer which could ultimately lead to a financial penalty.
	I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in supporting the aims of the regulations on consultation by employers. They will provide information and an opportunity for discussion to affected members of an employer's pension scheme when a significant change is proposed. It is important that individuals are fully aware of the implications of changes to their pensions so they can adjust their savings and retirement plans accordingly.
	These two sets of regulations will allow the consultation by employers and the information and consultation of employees provisions to operate as intended.